Church-Government PART V A RELATION OF THE English Reformation, AND The lawfulness thereof examined by the THESES delivered in the Four former Parts. Printed at OXFORD, 1687. The CONTENTS. CHAP. I. EIGHT Theses pre-posed whereby to try the lawfulness of this Reformation. §. 1. CHAP. II. Three Heads of this Discourse. I. 1. Head. How the English Clergy were first induced to acknowledge a new Regal Supremacy in Spirituals. §. 17. And how far only at the first they seem to have allowed it. §. 23. CHAP. III. II. 2. Head. Concerning what Supremacy was afterward by degrees conferred on, or also claimed by, the Prince. §. 26. n. 2. 1. In the times of Henry the Eighth. CHAP. IU. 2. In the times of Edward the Sixth. §. 38. CHAP. V. The former Supremacy disclaimed by Queen Mary and by the Bishops in her days, and the Pope's Supremacy re-acknowledged. §. 48. And the final judgement of Ecclesiastical matters restored to the Church. And the Church-doctrine under King Edward condemned. §. 51. That Queen Mary's Clergy was a lawful Clergy. That the Bishops in King Edward's days were not lawfully ejected. §. 54. Neither as to the Authority ejecting them. Nor as to the Cause, That the Bishops, deprived in Queen Mary's days, were lawfully ejected. Both, as to the Cause. And, as to the Judge. §. 64. Where Concerning the burning of those, who, in Queen Mary's days, were by the Church condemned of Heresy. §. 65. And therefore others lawfully introduced in their places. CHAP. VI 3. In the times of Queen Elizabeth. That as ample a Supremacy was claimed, and by Parliament conferred on her, as on King Henry, or Edward. §. 70. Where Concerning certain qualifications of her Supremacy urged by the Reformed. §. 72. And the Replies to them. But such Supremacy not acknowledged or consented to by the Clergy. §. 77. CHAP. VII. III. 3. Head. How, according to such Supremacy assumed, these three Princes acted in Ecclesiastical Affairs. §. 78. 1. The Actings of Henry the Eighth in Ecclesiastical Affairs. In the abrogating of former Ecclesiastical Laws, and compiling a new body of them. In putting forth a model of the Doctrine of the Christian Faith, and the Six Articles. §. 81. Where Concerning the complaints made by Protestants of his abuse of the Supremacy. In the consecrating and confirming of Bishops and Metropolitans §. 86. In the putting down of Monasteries, etc. § 87. The pretences thereof. §. 89. Reflections upon these pretences. §. 93. In the dispensing with the former Church Canons concerning Marriages, Fasts, Holy days, etc. §. 99 In the publishing and afterward prohibiting of the Scriptures in a vulgar tongue. §. 101. CHAP. VIII. 2. The Actings of King Edward in Ecclesiastical Affairs. §. 104. 1. Set down first more generally. In putting forth certain Injunctions and Doctrinal Homilies; sending Commissions thro' the Realm, and ejecting the refractory Clergy etc. In the prohibition of Preaching till he had settled Religion. The Defence made by the Protestant Divines concerning King Edward's proceed in matters of Religion The Reply thereto. §. 111. Where Concerning the Clergy's concurrence and consent to the King's Reformations. §. 119. CHAP. IX. 2. More particularly. In sending certain Doctrinal Articles to be subscribed by the Bishop of Winchester. In repealing the Six Articles passed by Synod in Henry the Eighth's time. §. 137. In seizing on Religious Houses and some Bishop's Lands, and denying the lawfulness of Monastic Vows. In defacing Images. In enjoining Administration of the Communion in both kinds. §. 142. In suppressing the former Church-Liturgies, Ordinals, and other Rituals. §. 143. In setting up new Forms Of celebrating the Communion. §. 144. Of Ordination. §. 145. Of Common-Prayer. §. 146. Out of which was ejected the Sacrifice of the Mass. §. 147. Where 1. Concerning the alterations of the first Common-Prayer-Book of King Edward's in relation to the Sacrifice of the Eucharist. 148. 2. Concerning the further alterations in the second Common-Prayer-Book in relation to the same Sacrifice. §. 149. 3. Concerning the reduction of some things touching this matter, in the new Common-Prayer-Book prepared for Scotland, to the first Form of King Edward. §. 150. Much complained of in Laudensium Autocatacrisis. §. 151. And the celebration of the Eucharist prohibited, when none other to communicate with the Priest. §. 152. And Invocation of Saints expunged out of the Litanies. §. 154. And the necessity of Sacerdotal Confession relaxed. §. 155. CHAP. X. In setting forth a second Form of Common-Prayer, than which the first was in many things much more moderate. §. 157. In which second Book are rectified and removed many things which gave offence in the former. §. 158. Among the rest, Prayer for the Dead: and several expressions that seemed to infer the Real or Corporal Presence in the Eucharist. §. 160. Where Concerning the reduction of some things, touching this Presence, made in the new Liturgy for Scotland, to King Edward's first Form. §. 161. Much complained of in Laudensium Autocatacrisis. In the abrogation of several Ecclesiastical Laws concerning Fasts, Celibacy of the Clergy, &c Lastly, In the Edition of 42 Articles of Religion different from the former doctrines of the Church. §. 165. Where Whether these Articles were passed by any Synod. CHAP. XI. 3. The Actings of Queen Elizabeth in Ecclesiastical matters. §. 170. All the former decrees of the Clergy in King Henry and King Edward's days being reversed by the Clergy in Queen Mary's days. Her calling of a Synod; which declareth against the Reformation. A Disputation between the Bishops and the R●●●●med Divines. §. 177. The Regal Supremacy and all that King Edward had done in the Reformation now reestablished by the Qu. and Parliament. §. 179. But not by the Clergy. The ejecting of the Bishops for refusing the Oath of her Supremacy. §. 180. The unlawfulness of this Ejection. Concerning Regal Supremacy How far it seemeth to extend. §. 181. How far not. §. 183. That Submission to the Regal Supremacy in this later kind was required from those Bishops. §. 184. Concerning Foreign Supremacy in Ecclesiastical Affairs: how far it is to be acknowledged. §. 185. That the renouncing such Supremacy was required of those Bishops. §. 186. That so many of Queen Mary's Bishops could not be lawfully ejected on any other ground, as would render the Protestant Bishops a major part. §. 187. CHAP. XII. Concerning the defects of the Queen's Protestant Bishops remaining since King Edward's days. §. 190. n. 1. Concerning the defects of the new Bishops ordained in Qu. Elizabeth's days. §. 191. Whether their Ordination unlawful according to the Church Canons. §. 193. Where Concerning the Queen, as Supreme in Ecclesiasticals, her dispensing with the former Ecclesiastical Laws for their Ordination. §. 194. CHAP. XIII. Digression concerning The Opinion of several Protestant Divines touching the lawfulness of the Prince's reforming of Religion in matters of Doctrine against the major part of the Clergy, when to him seemeth a necessity that requireth it. 196. Opinion; Of Dr. Field. §. 197. Of Mr. Mason. §. 199. Of Bishop Andrews. §. 201. Of Mr. Thorndike. §. 203. Of Dr. Heylin. §. 205. Of Dr. Fern. §. 208. Conclusion of the Fifth Part. Wherein The Ecclesiastical Supremacy of these Princes transcendeth that challenged by the Patriarch. §. 214. That several Protestants deny such a Supremacy due to Princes. §. 215. CHAP. XIV. Conclusion of this whole Discourse of Church Government. §. 218. Where Concerning the benefit that may be hoped for from a future free General Council for the settling of present Controversies, §. 219. OF Church Government PART V Concerning the English REFORMATION. CHAP. I. Eight Propositions, whereby the lawfulness of this Reformation is to be tried. §. 1 TO finish these Discourses of Church Government, Eight Theses pre-posed, whereby to try the lawfulness of this Reformation. there remain yet behind some Considerations concerning the lawfulness and regularity of the Reformations made here in England, in the days of Henry the Eighth, Edward the Sixth, and Queen Elizabeth, according to the Principles already established. Of which Reformations that you may make the more exact judgement; 'tis fit to remind you, first of these few Propositions, which have been cleared, or do necessarily follow from what hath been cleared in the former Discourses. And they are these; The First, §. 2. Thes. 1. That, amongst other offices and authorities which the Clergy, Christ's substitutes, (by Clergy I mean the lawful Church-Authority) have received from him, as God's Highpriest and Prophet, these are two principal ones. First, The power to determine Controversies in pure matters of Religion, and to judge and decide, (where doubts arise) what is God's Word and divine Truth; what are errors, in the Faith, or in the practice and performance of God's Worship and Service (which errors in Practice always pre-suppose some error in matter of Faith.) And Secondly, The power, to promulgate, teach, preach, and make-known such matters, when decided by them, to God's people, who are, for doctrine in Spiritual things, committed to their charge; and to require their obedience and submission thereto; with power to execute the Ecclesiastical Censures (which have reference to things not of this, but of the next, world) upon all such, as disobey their Authority: else what profits the Church a silent determination of a Controversy, more, than letting it alone; a concealed, more than a non-decision thereof? And these things from our Saviour's Commission they are obliged to perform, and consequently to use such Assemblies and Meetings together, Consults, Summons, Examinations, etc. Without which such things cannot be performed, tho' any Civil or Secular power, Heathen, or Christian (who perhaps may be an Heretic or Schismatic; as some Christian Princes have been Arians) doth oppose them. [So, a Christian Emperor Constantius being an Arian, and prohibiting in his Empire the promulgation of the Orthodox Doctrine of the Trinity, yet the Western Catholic Bishops, nevertheless, did promulgate their definition of the Consubstantiation of the Son with the Father.] And indeed of these two Secular Powers the Christian, if either, seems to have the less capacity to hinder or resist them: because he professeth himself, with the rest of the Christians, as to the knowing of Spiritual Truths, a Subject, and a Scholar of the Church; and because he so earnestly claimeth a Supreme Power, and professeth an Obligation from God over all persons, in all Spiritual matters, to bind them, upon Temporal punishments, to the obedience of the Church's (or Clergies) Determinations and Decrees. But if he meaneth here, only where himself first judgeth such their Decrees orthodox and right, this power is, (in effect,) claimed, to bind all persons, in all Spiritual matters, only to his own Decrees; whilst he pretends an Obligation both of himself and of his Subjects to the Churches. Yet so it is indeed, that all Princes whatever, even the Heathen, have such an Obligation from God: Nor doth any Text of the New Testament give Christian Princes more Authority over the Church, to restrain any Liberties thereof, than it giveth to the Heathen Princes. For all the Texts, which are urged thence, ordain obedience of Church men to the Pagan Princes that then Reigned, no less, than to others. And all Princes are obliged, with the Sword, which God hath given them, not only not to persecute, but to protect and defend, his true Religion and Service in their Dominions, whensoever it offereth itself to them, and claimeth their Subjection and Protection. See Psal. 2.1, 2, 10, 11, 12. Tho the Obligation of some Princes to this may be more than that of others, as he hath had more divine Truth revealed, and hath received more favours from God and his Church. See these things more largely handled before, in Succession of Clergy, etc. And in Church Government. 1. Part. §. 38. §. 2 Neither doth that, which is ordinarily urged, viz. That the Acts and Laws of the ancient Councils of the Church de Facto had always the Christian Emperors consent, (though indeed they always had not: not the Anti-arian Councils in Constantius his time, and yet they were obliging in the establishing the Nicene Decrees) prove, that they were not of force without such consent: nor doth the Councils entreating the Emperor's consent, when Christian, prove; they did this, to legitimate the making or enjoining of such laws (for such laws they had formerly both made, and imposed, when Emperors were their enemies) but to strengthen the observance of them. Indeed the Prince, who beareth the Secular Sword, his giving to the Ministers of Christ his licence, to exercise their office, and their ecclesiastical censures in his dominions, or in any part or province thereof, as it implies the prohibiting of his officers or subjects any way to disturb them, is to great purpose, and therefore much to be desired; But it showeth not, that it is in his just power to deny them such licence. (I mean in general; for I meddle not here with the Princes denying some of them to do these things, whilst he admits others); or that his officers or subjects, without it, may lawfully disturb them in any part of their Spiritual Function. Touching these things this is the concession of Bishop Andrews (Tort. Tort. p. 366) potestatis merè Sacerdotalis sunt Liturgiae, Conciones [i. e, docendi munus, & dubia legis explicandi, as he saith, ibid. p. 380] claves [to which he adds Censurae p. 380] Sacramenta [& omnia, quae potestatem ordinis consequuntur p. 380] and (somewhat more plainly) of Bishop Carleton in his Treatise of Jurisdiction Regal and Episcopal 1. c. p. 9 As far Spiritual Jurisdiction (saith he) standing in examination of controversies of Faith; judging of Heresies; deposing of Heretics; excommunications of notorious and stubborn offenders; ordination of Priests and Deacons; institution and collation of Benefices and Spiritual Cures; this we reserve entire to the Church; which Princes cannot give to, nor take from, the Church. So he saith, p. 42. That external jurisdiction is either definitive or mulctative. Authority definitive in matters of Faith and Religion belonged to the Church: Mulctative power is understood, either as it is with coaction, or as it is referred to Spiritual censures. As it standeth in Spiritual censures, it is the right of the Church, and was practised by the Church, when without Christian Magistrate, and since. But coactive Jurisdiction was always ways understood to belong to the Civil Magistrate, whether Christian, or Heathen. And by this power (saith he, c. 4 p. 39) without coaction, the Church was called, Faith was planted, Devils were subdued, the Nations were taken out of the power of darkness, the World reduced to the obedience of Christ; by this power, without coactive Jurisdiction, the Church was governed for Three Hundred years together. [Butler, if it be inquired what was done, when the Emperors were Christian, and when their coactive power came in?] The Emperors (saith he, p. 178.) never took upon them by their authority to define matters of Faith and Religion; that they left to the Church. But when the Church had defined such truths against Heretics, and had deposed such Heretics; then the Emperors, concurring with the Church by their Imperial Constitutions, did, by their coactive power, give strength to the Canons of the Church. But then: what if the Emperors, being Christian, should take upon them, by their authority, to define matters of Faith, or should use their coactive power against the Canons of the Church? Take the answer of another reformed Writer, Mr. Thorndike. Right of Church 4. c. p. 234. The power of the Church is so absolute (saith he) and depending on God alone, that if a Sovereign professing Christianity should forbid, the Profession of that Faith, or the exercise of those Ordinances, which God hath required to be served with, or even the exercise of that Ecclesiastical power which shall be necessary to preserve the Unity of the Church; it must needs be necessary, for those that are trusted with the power of the Church not only to disobey the Commands of the Sovereign, but to use that power, which their quality in the Society of the Church gives them, to provide for the subsistence thereof without the assistance of Secular powers. A thing manifestly supposed by all the Bishops of the ancient Church in all those actions; wherein they refused, to obey their Emperors seduced by Heretics, and to suffer their Churches to be regulated by them, to the prejudice of Christianity. Which actions whosoever justifies not, he will lay the Church open to ruin, whensoever the Sovereign power is seduced by Heretics. And such a difference falling out [i. e, between Prince and Clergy, in Church matters] as that to particular persons it cannot be clear, who is in the right; It will be requisite (saith he) for christian's, in a doubtful case, at their utmost perils, to adhere to the Guides of the Church against their lawful Sovereigns, though to no other effect, than to suffer [if the Prince impose it] for the exercise of their Christianity, and the maintenance of the Society of the Church in Unity [tho contrary to the Sovereign's commmands.] Thus Mr. Thorndike, in Right of the Church, 4. chap. And like things he saith in his Epilog. of the Church of Engl. See there 1. l. 9 c. the Contents whereof touching this Subject he hath briefly expressed thus: That that power, which was in Churches under the Apostles, can never be in any Christian Sovereign. That the Interest of Secular power in determining matters of Faith presupposeth the Society of the Church, and the Act of it. That the Church is the chief Teacher of Christianity thro' Christendom, as the Sovereign is of civil Peace thro' his Dominions. And there he giveth reasons why the Church is to decide matters of Faith, rather than the State, supposing neither to be infallible. And see 1. l. 20. c. p. 158. Where he saith, That He, who disturbs the Communion of the Church, remains punishable by the Secular power (to inflict Temporal Penalties) not absolutely, because it is Christian; but upon supposition, that this Temporal power maintaineth the true Church. And afterward, That the Secular power is not able of itself to do any of those Acts, which the Church (i. e, those who are qualified by and for the Church) are qualified by virtue of their Commission from Christ to do, without committing the Sin of Sacrilege (in seizing into its own hands the powers, which by God's Act are constituted; and therefore consecrated and dedicated to his own Service) not supposing the free Act of the Church, without fraud and violence, to the doing of it; [i. e. joined to the Secular power, doing such Act.] Now amongst the Acts and Powers belonging to the Church (which he calls a Corporation) by divine right and appointment he names these l. 1. c. 16. p. 116. The power of making Laws within themselves; of Electing Church Governors (of which see 3. l. 32. c. p. 398,) and of excommunicating, and (3. l. 32. c. p 385,) the power to determine all matters, the determination whereof is requisite to maintain the communion of Christians in the Service of God; and [the power] to oblige Christians to stand to that determination under pain of forfeiting that Communion; the power of holding Assemblies, of which he speaketh thus 1. l. 8. c. p. 54. I that pretend the Church to be a Corporation Founded by God upon a Privilege of holding visible Assemblies for the common Service of God, notwithstanding any Secular force prohibiting the same, must needs maintain by consequence, that the Church hath power in itself to hold all such Assemblies as shall be requisite to maintain the common Service of God and the Unity in it, and the order of all Assemblies that exercise it. Thus Mr. Thorndike. Discourse of Episcopacy and Presbytery p. 19 And thus Dr Fern of the power of Judicature belonging to the Clergy. It is confessed (saith he) on both sides, that the power of Ordination and of Judicature, so far as the Keys left by Christ in his Church do extend, is of divine Institution; and that this power must be exercised or administered in the Church by some [either Bishops or Presbyters] is also confessed to be of divine right Therefore, surely, no Secular Prince can justly prohibit within his dominions the exercise of such Judicature; nor, prohibiting is to be obeyed; and Christ's substitutes, herein being denied the assistance of the Civil power, are to proceed without it. To these I will add what Dr. Taylor hath delivered on the same Subject in Episcopacy asserted; and this the rather, because this Treatise was published by the Command of so understanding a Prince. He, after that, p. 263. he hath laid this ground for the security of Secular Princes; That, since that Christ hath professed, that his Kingdom is not of this world, that Government, which he hath constituted the novo, doth no way make any entrenchment on the Royalty; hath these passages. P. 237. he saith, That those things which Christianity (as it prescinds from the interest of the Republic) hath introduced, all them and all the causes emergent from them the Bishop is Judge of. Such are causes of Faith; Ministration of Sacraments; and Sacramentals; Subordinations of inferior Clergy to their superior; Rites, Liturgies, etc. As for the rights of the Secular power, he layeth down this Rule, p. 236 Whatsoever the Secular Tribunal did take cognizance of before it was Christian, the same it takes notice of after it is Christened. And these are: All actions civil, all public violations of Justice, all breach of Municipal laws. These the Church (saith he) hath nothing to do with, unless by the favour of Princes these be indulged to it [these by their favour then indulged, but not so the former.]. Accordingly p. 239. he saith: Both Prince and Bishop have indicted Synods in several ages upon the exigence of several occasions, and have several powers for the engagement of clerical obedience and attendance upon such Solemnities. That the Bishop's jurisdiction hath a Compulsory, derived from Christ only, viz. Infliction of Censures by Excommunication, or other minores plagae, which are in order to it. And that the King is supreme of the Jurisdiction, viz. that part of it, which is the external compulsory [i. e, as he saith before] to superadd a temporal Penalty upon contumacy, or some other way abett the censures of the Church. P. 243. he saith, That in those cases, in which by the law of Christ Bishops may, or in which they must, use Excommunication, no power can forbid them. For what power Christ hath given them, no man can take away. And p. 144. That the Church may inflict her censures upon her delinquent children without ask leave; that Christ is her 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for that; he is her warrant and security. And p. 245. That the Kings supreme regal power in causes of the Church consists in all things, in which the Priestly office is not precisely, by God's law, employed for regiment and cure of Souls: [I suppose those he named before p. 237.] and in these also, that all the external Compulsory and Jurisdiction [as he expoundeth it before p. 239] is the Kings. And lastly, p. 241. he saith, that the Catholic Bishops [in time of the Arian Emperors] made humble and fair remonstrance of the distinction of Powers and Jurisdiction; that as they might not entrench upon the Royalty, so neither betray the right which Christ concredited to them to the encroachment of an exterior Jurisdiction and Power, [i. e, the Royal.] See the like expressions frequent in Bishop Bramhal, Schism Guarded, p. 61. All which our Kings (saith he) assume to themselves, is the external regiment of the Church by coactive power to be exercised by persons capable of the respective branches of it [i. e, of that regiment;] and p. 63, He comments thus on the 37th Article of the Church of England. You see the Power is political, the Sword is political, all is political. Our Kings leave the power of the Keys and Jurisdiction purely Spiritual to those to whom Christ hath left it. And p. 92, he saith, We see the primitive Fathers did assemble Synods and make Canons before there were any Christian Emperors; but they had no coactive power to compel any man against his will [this therefore is the power which Christian Princes bring in to them, without taking away, I hope, any of that power which the Church from Christ held under Heathen Princes.] And p. 119, We acknowledge, that Bishops were always esteemed the proper Judges of the Canons, both for composing of them, and executing of them; but with this caution, that to make them laws [he means such Laws, for observance of which Secular coaction might be used,] the Confirmation of the Prince was required, and to give the Bishop a coactive power to execute them, the Princes grant or concession was needful. [Doth not this Bishop mean here, that Bishops may both compose and execute Canons in the King's dominions, and use the Ecclesiastical censures by their own authority; only that they can use no coaction by pecuniary or corporal punishments in the execution of them, without his? But see below §. 22. The Bishops deprived of the former power in the Reformation: See more of this §. 35. N. 2.] And Answer to Chalc. p. 161. he saith, It is coercive and compulsory and corrobatory Power, it is the application of the matter, it is the regulating of the exercise of actual Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction in the [external] Court of the Church; [Why or under what pretence?] to prevent (saith he) the oppression of their Subjects, and to provide for the tranquillity of the Common wealth, [not therefore to examine, what in those external Courts of the Church is passed agreeable or disagreeable to God's word; for this Princes are to learn from those Courts] which belongs to Sovereign Princes. Thus he Lastly see the King's last Paper in the Isle of Wight, p 3. where it is said. That though the Bishops in the times under Pagan Princes had no outward coercive power over men's persons or estates [no more have they now except from and during the Prince's pleasure:] Yet inasmuch as every Christian man, when he became a member of the Church, did, ipso facto and by that his own voluntary Act, put himself under their Government [so Christian men do still, Princes and all] they exercised a very large power of Jurisdiction in Spiritualibus; in making Ecclesiastical Canons, in receiving Accusations, conventing the accused, examining witnesses, judging of crimes [against God's law] excluding such men, as they found guilty of scandalous offences, from the Lords Supper, enjoining Penancies upon them, casting them out of the Church, receiving them again upon their Repentance, etc. [Now I subsume, the same making of Ecclesiastical Canons, the same Church Discipline, casting out of the Church or Excommunication, etc. they are, and must be allowed still in Christian States; being things which as Bishop Carleton saith, Princes can neither give to, nor take from, the Church. And therefore they must be allowed still all those means absolutely sine-quibus non such things can be done: and these are means absolutely necessary; Convening, for the making of Canons: Knowing the Fact, for Excommunication: therefore, in case the Christian Prince will not call them, they may assemble themselves, when the Church's necessities require such Canons; and when the Christian Secular Courts will not, they may examine the Facts of those who are accused to them of Delinquency: but this in order to Church punishments only. When ever the Christian Prince or State is to them as a Heathen, in his withdrawing and prohibiting these necessary things, then may they behave themselves as formerly in Heathenism, i. e, do these things without their leave, against their prohibitions. All the Plea, that a Secular State subjecting itself to the Church can make for meddling in such Spiritual affairs, seems to be this; that the Church shall not be troubled (now as formerly) to do all, because the State with its more awing power will do something for it. Which is, the assisting of the Church in her business, not the abridging of her in her power.] The Second Thesis. That the Clergy cannot alienate or make over and give away to the Secular Governor, §. 4 Thes. 2. or to his Ministers and Delegates, any authority or office, which they have received and been charged with by Christ, with a Command to execute the same to the end of the world, and with a threat to become answerable to God for any miscarriage of the people by their default therein. From which it follows, that the Clergies doing of either of these Two things. First, The binding themselves for ever to any Secular Governor, never to make, or never to teach abroad and publish to the people his Subjects any judgement or decision of theirs, made in matters of Faith and God's Worship, or made for reforming some Error or Heresy, or other abuse in God's Service, without the consent of such Governor first obtained thereto (which Governor, as I said, though Christian and a Believer, yet may be a Sectarist, an Heretic, etc.) 2. Or Secondly, (which is yet worse) the authorising of the Secular Governor, or of those whom he shall please to choose and nominate (who will be sure to name those rather of his own Sect) to determine, and decide, and promulge such Spiritual matters; for the Clergy, and in their stead: So that now not only the Clergy cannot do such things without such Secular Governor, but also such Governor may do those things without the Clergy. I say, these two are unlawful, as being contrary to the duties of the Clergy, said above (Thesis the First,) to be committed to them by Christ. The Third Thesis. §. 5. Thes. 3. That the Secular Prince cannot depose or eject front the exercise of their office in his Dominions any of the Clergy; neither absolutely, without any cause pretended: as he may remove those Officers and Ministers under him, who hold their places only durante beneplacite. Nor for a cause alleged: if it be such as this; namely, for their not obeying the decisions which he or his civil Council shall make in Spiritual matters; or for their transgressing of the Ecclesiastical Canons; ² nor can introduce others into the places of the ejected; without the consent of the major part of the Clergy, or of their Ecclesiastical Superiors (which consent if he obtain I reckon not this deposition &c. to be his Act, but theirs:) [And here note, that what is said of other Clergy, may be said likewise of the Patriarch, for any authority in such Prince's Dominions which he stands possessed of by such Ecclesiastical Canons, as cannot justly be pretended to do any wrong to the civil Government. Touching which matter see Church Gou. 1. Par. §. 38. etc.] §. 6 First: The Prince cannot eject them. 1. 1. Neither without giving any cause thereof; because they hold not these their Offices from the Prince; much less from him, only during pleasure; but they receive them by Solemn Ordination from their Predecessors in this Ministry, the Substitutes of the Lord Christ; even this Office among the rest, to oversee, instruct and use Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction, in making or publishing Ecclesiastical Laws, and imposing censures over the flock of Christ in what Princes Dominions soever, or in whatsoever Province or Diocese thereof, as every one by his Ecclesiastical Superiors is appointed; as appears by their equally exercising such Office in the three first Centuries in all Dominions distributed into several Provincial and Parochial Governments, (the Twelve Apostles being said at the first to have allotted to themselves several Circuits after the same manner) even when the Supreme Power-civil not only licenced not, but opposed and prohibited them to do it on pain of death. Of which matter see Mr. Thorndike Right of the Church 1 chap. Seeing the Church (saith he) subsisted Three Hundred years, before any State professed Christianity, whatsoever right it used during that time, manifestly therefore it ought still to use and enjoy: this being the most pertinent evidence to show the bounds of it [(i. e.) of such rights independent on any Temporal Governor] See him 4. c. p. 169. And the Apostles themselves were they, who first set up this Church Government in Civil States. And St. Paul made Titus Superintendent of Crect, and Timothy of Ephesus for Spiritual Affairs, without the Secular Governors leave; * who were, in these places, to ordain others, to preserve for ever the Doctrines and Discipline delivered to them. For this cause (saith Paul to Titus 1. chap. 5. ver.) left I thee in Crect, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are left undone, and ordain Presbyters in every City, as I had appointed thee. [Which ordaining of others signifieth also Institution in the charge, or cure, whereto they ministered (as Bishop Carleton confesseth Jurisdict. Regal Episcopal 4. chap. pag. 40.) Again, * Who were, in these places, to receive Accusations; hear Witnesses; (which cannot be without appointed Assemblies and Meetings) silence false Teachers; excommunicate Offenders. See Tit. 1.11. Rev. 2.20. 1. Tim. 1.3.5.19. Against an Elder receive not an Accusation, but before two or three Witnesses. [Now he (saith the same Author pag. 42.) that is appointed to hear Accusations, and to receive the testimonies of witnesses, is seated in a place of judgement with Jurisdiction.] (See more of this in Success Clergy. §. 4.) and this they did, when the Temporal Governors of those places licenced them not, yea persecuted them. So Athanasius, ejected by Constantius his Emperor from the charge which the Church had committed to him of Alexandria, and Paulus from Constantinople, were nevertheless accounted still the true Bishops of those Sees. Prince's indeed may deprive the Clergy at pleasure or according as Covenants made, of what they bestow on them, Houses, Lands, Privileges, Jurisdictions, Lordships Temporal; but the Offices abovenamed they bestow not. 2. Again, as Princes may not depose them, at pleasure; so neither, for any cause, which concerns things Spiritual, without the Clergy's consent. For it is necessary, that a Judge, to be a competent one, have as well potestatem in causam, as in personam: and the Prince (as hath been mentioned in the first Thesis,) hath no authority to judge such causes merely Spiritual. To this may be added; that neither Heathen nor Heretical Prince can justly prohibit totally all that Clergy, whom the Church declares Orthodox, from entering into, or from preaching and otherwise officiating in Divine matters within his Dominions. And if he put such to death for disobeying this his Command, when as it is contrary to Gods, and Christ's, who sendeth them to all Nations, in effect he puts them to death for obeying God's Command, and they die Martyrs. As also the Primitive Martyrs were put to death for not obeying the Emperor's Laws concerning matters of their Religion. §. 7 Second: 2. As the Prince cannot thus eject or depose Clergy; so neither can he introduce any into the place of those who are ejected or deceased, without the concurrence of the Clergy. For such person must be ordained by the Clergy, before he can officiate; and must have the consents or approbation of his Spiritual Superiors; a Bishop of his Metropolitan; a Metropolitan, of his Patriarch; and also of the major part of the Clergy of the Province which he belongs to [I mean Clergy Episcopal] before he can be rightly ordained. See Conc. Nic. can. 4. and 6. And Conc. Nic. 2. can. 3. Can. Apost. 31. Conc. Gen. 8. nm can. 10.12.22. Conc. Laodic, can. 13 With the Concessions of Dr. Field of the Church, p. 581, and p. 551. And of Bishop Bramhal Vindic. p. 257. and others quoted in Chur. Gou. 1 part. §. 9 And of Mason de Minist. Angl. 4. l. 6. c. And of Mr. Thorndike Right of the Church, 5 c. p. 248, etc. Which Canons were purposely made to exclude for ever out of the Clergy those, who are, in the common judgement of that Clergy, corrupt in manners, or factious in opinions. Tho Princes therefore for the greater security of their civil Government, and for the recompense of the great Obligations which the Church hath to their Liberality and to their Secular power, may nominate and recommend a person to the Clergies Election; yet if they propose not any whom the Clergy thinks fit and canonical; the Clergy may refuse such presentment; and in case of no new presentation of a person worthy, may elect some other to teach, officiate, &c, in any part of their Dominions: whom such Princes ought not to refuse, if he be no way prejudicial to the good of their civil Estate. For the Prince can neither prohibit to Christians, though his Subjects, all Pastors; nor yet all such Pastors, as the Governors, whom Christ hath set over his people, only think worthy. See Mr. Thorndike, Right of the Chur. 5. c. And indeed all this is but necessary for the propogating, of the Gospel against Infidelity, where the Prince is Heathen; and of the truth of the Gospel, against Heresy, where the Prince is, or at least may be, a Sectarist, amongst all Nations without depending on any one's leave; and for the preserving of the Church uniform, entire, and incorrupt, in her Doctrine and Discipline. For if Temporal Governors could at their pleasure, or, as they thought meet, place and displace the Clergy, though they cannot state all Divine matters by themselves, yet may they make the Church's Synods (which is all one) to state them according to their minds, either by introducing some de novo who are for them; (as Princes can never want those who conform to, or at least comply with, their judgement;) or by removing some who oppose them; and so making, the formerly lesser, then, a major part in such Assemblies. Thus Constantius an Arian, by unjustly displacing the Bishops procured Arianism to be voted in several Eastern Synods. §. 8 Meanwhile, let it here be granted; that, cui conceditur regnum, necessario omnia censentur concessa, sine quibus regnum gubernari non potest; and therefore that the civil power may judge and eject, and disauthorize Spiritual persons for matters of Secular Judicature, as Treason, and other moral and civil misdemeanours damageable to the Commonwealth; and such I suppose was the case of Abiathar. And if upon this it should at any time happen; that the thus ejected be numerous; and the new ones introduced by any connivance of the rest of the Clergy and by the importunities and threats of the Prince, should be also heterodox and factious; and by this means the prevailing part of a Provincial, or National, Church, corrupt; yet whilst Christ hath promised to preserve the main body of his Church from such corruption, we have some remedy from the General, for the delinquencies of such a national Church: in that their Decrees are subjected to the Decrees of superior Counsels, nor may these decide any thing against those; the next Thesis; which in such case we must repair to. The Fourth Thesis: §. 9 Thes. 4. That a Provincial or National Synod may not lawfully make any definitions, in matters of Faith, or in reforming some Error or Heresy, or other abuse in God's Service, contrary to the Decrees of former superior Synods; or contrary to the judgement of the Church Universal of the present age shèwed in her public Liturgies; which judgement is equivalent to that of a General Council of the same age. See this Proposition amply proved in 2. Part. §. 27. and 44. and 55. etc. and in many other places of the precedent Discourses. The Fifth Thesis: That, §. 10. Thes. 5. could a National Synod make such definitions, yet that a Synod wanting part of the National Clergy, unjustly deposed or restrained; and consisting partly of persons unjustly introduced, partly of those who have been first threatened, with fines, imprisonment, deprivation, in case of their nonconformity to the Prince's Injunctions in matters merely Spiritual; is not to be accounted a lawful National Synod, nor the Acts thereof free and valid; especially as to their establishing such Regal Injunctions. The Sixth Thesis: §. 11. 1. ●. Thesi 6th. That the judgement or consent of some Clergymen or Bishops of a Province, whether sitting by themselves, or joined with some of the Laity, cannot be called the judgement and consent of the Clergy, or Church of that Province (though the Metropolitan be one of them) when these are only some smaller part of such Clergy. See Can. Apost. 35. Conc. Antioch. 9 c. Neither, since the Clergy is in its self a subordinate and united body, can the Prince, when following the directions of some few Clergy, whom he knows or fears to differ in their judgement from the main body thereof, be said to be guided by his Clergy, but to go against it. For if some smaller part of the Clergy joined with the Prince could by this outweigh the rest, what opinion can the Prince entertain so extravagant, wherein he cannot draw some Churchmen to his side? Much less may an Act of Parliament be urged for an Act of the Clergy, because the Lords Spiritual sit therein; §. 12. n. 2. or because it commonly runs thus: [Be it Enacted by the Kings most Excellent Majesty, and by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal] unless it be first shown that the major part or the Bishops of the Nation gave their consents therein. For since, herein, the Clergy do vote together with the Laity; and since it is enough, if the major part of the Parliament vote any thing, to promulgate it as an Act of all the Members thereof, and to use the form abovenamed; so long as the others Members have no Negative voice to what is passed by this major part; It would hence follow, that it were an Act of the Clergy, or Synodal, where, not one, or where only some few, of the Clergy do give their consent, if so be that the Laity, that vote with them, do equal or exceed their number. 1. Eliz. 1. c. So An. 1. Eliz. the reintroducing of the Protestant Religion passed as an Act of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons assembled in Parliament, when all the Bishops, therein present, opposed it. See Camden's An. 1. Eliz. And 1. Eliz. 1. c §. 13 The Seventh Thesis: That, Thesis' 7th. though Secular Princes were allowed to have a decisive power in some matters of Faith, such as are no way formerly determined (which is contrary to the First and Second Thesis) yet, for such points as have been formerly determined on any side, here, since a National Synod may not define any such thing contrary to former superior Councils, much less may any Secular person define any such things contrary to those Councils; or also contrary to a National Synod. §. 14 The Eighth Thesis: That, Thesis' 8th. as touching Divine truths and matters of Faith (spoken of hitherto;) so now for things of mere Ecclesiastical Constitution, and not Divine Command, Neither National Synod nor Secular power may make any new Canons concerning the Government and Discipline of the Church contrary to the Ecclesiastical Constitutions of former superior Councils, nor reverse those formerly made by them; at least, so many of these; as neither the Prince can show some way prejudicial to his civil Government; nor the National Synod can show some way more prejudicial to their particular Church, than the same Constitutions are to the rest of Christian Churches See this Thesis proved in Chur. Gou. 2. Part. §. 63. And 3. Part. §. 13. n. 3. And §. 27. n. 2. §. 15 These Theses being set down whereby to judge of the Regularity of a Reformation; let us now view the carriage thereof here in England in the time of Henry the Eighth, Edward the Sixth, and Queen Elizabeth; and how far it hath deviated from them. Touching which Reformation, I would desire you to read together with these ●ay Observations what is related in defence thereof by, Dr. Hammond, Schism, 7. c. Dr. Fern in Considerations touching the Reformed Church, 2. and 9 Chap. And Dr. Heylin's Treatise called the Reformation of the Church of England Justified; lest I may have related some things partially, or omitted some things considerable, in this matter. And here, §. 16. 1. Three Heads of this Discourse. confining my Discourse to Three Heads, I will first give you an account, how the Clergy, in Henry the Eighth's days, were at the beginning induced to acknowledge the King's Supremacy in Spiritual matters after another manner, than his Predecessors had exercised it formerly: and, how far only at first they seem to have allowed it. [I say after another manner than his Predecessors had exercised it formerly. Because some Supremacy, namely this; of assembling a Synod of the Clergy, upon Temporal punishments in case of Disobedience, by their Writs (the ancient form of which see in Dr. Heylin, p. 4) when any urgent occasions required: as likewise of enjoining to all their Subjects, as well Clergy, as others, upon Temporal Penalties, the observance of the Decrees and Constitutions of such Synods, or of any other former lawful Councils (such as the Clergy shall acknowledge to have been the Decrees thereof) these Supremacies (I say) the Princes of this Land before Henry the Eighth, had and exercised; neither was any such Supremacy usurped, or interrupted, by the Pope. Neither do the Roman Doctors deny such an external coactive Jurisdiction of Princes in Spiritual Affairs; 1. as to bind their Clergy, upon Temporal Mulcts, to meet together in Council, when the same Princes shall think it necessary; the ecclesiastics being their Subjects, as well as Christ's Clergy, and on this account bound to obey them, as well as their Spiritual Governors on the other; and there being often good cause of their assembling in order to the peace and welfare of the civil State committed to the Prince's care, because this dependeth much on the right Government of the Church committed to theirs. Provided only, that these Assemblies be so timed and disposed by the Prince, as that the authority which our Saviour hath committed to the Church concerning the assembling of the same persons be no way disturbed thereby. For doubtless, when both at the same time cannot be done, their Service to the Church is to be preferred before that to the State. 2. as to bind their Subjects, upon External and Temporal Mulcts and Punishments, to observe the Laws and Determinations of the Church. But, First that the Governors of the Church have also power, upon Ecclesiastical Censures, to assemble a Synod of Clergy, when there seems need, though the Prince oppose it, this indeed those Doctors affirm. And secondly whether, in case that a Prince use his coactive Jurisdiction in Spiritual matters against the Definitions of the Church, than the Pope hath not also virtually some Temporal coactive power against the Prince, namely; to dissolve the Prince's coactive power, or to authorise others to use a coactive power against such a Prince, in order to the good of he Church, this they bring in question. But then, as his last is affirmed by some of the Roman Doctors, so it is opposed by others of them. ] 2. We will consider what manner of Supremacy was afterward by little and little either challenged by the Prince; or by the Clergy or Parliament given unto him, as his right. 3. And Thirdly how, according to this their conceived right, those Three Princes acted. CHAP. II. The Inducement of the English Clergy to acknowledge a Regal Supremacy in Spirituals. I. Head. §. 17 FOR the First. Henry the Eighth, whether because scrupulous in Conscience, How the Engl. Clergy were first induced to acknowledge a new Regal Supremacy in Spirituals. occasioned by his Daughter Mary's being offered in Marriage first to the Emperor Charles the Fifth, and then to Francis King of France; and by both refused (as is said) upon this account, because they doubted of the lawfulness of Henry's Marriage with her Mother: or whether because much enamoured on another Lady Anne Bullen, Daughter to the Treasurer of his Household, and an Attendant on the Queen [yet between whom and him it is said, that the King was conscious of some Impediments, why he could not lawfully marry her, for which an Act of Parliament 28. Hen. 8.7. c. never after repealed plainly declared her Daughter Elizabeth uncapable of the Crown: and of which those words in the Dispensation procured from Clement the Seventh. Etiamsi illa tibi aliàs secundo aut remotiori consanguinitatis, aut primo affinitatis gradu, etiam ex quocunque licito vel illicito coitu, proveniente invicem conjuncta sit, do give some suspicion.] Had a great desire, after Twenty years' cohabitation, to be divorced from Queen Katherine, because having been formerly his Brother's Wife. Cardinal Wolsey being made the Bishop's Legate together with Cardinal Campegius for the hearing and determining this matter, though at first he much corresponded with the King's Inclinations, having designed his Matching with the King of France his Sister (as is thought) from some Self-interests; yet, when he discovered the King's Affections settled on Anne Bullen, one inclined to Lutheranism, See Fox p. 988. 1036. he proves averse now to what he had formerly advanced, and delays the decision of the Divorce so long, till at last the Pope, moved thereto by the Emperor, Nephew to Queen Katherine, did, upon her appeal, revoke the cause to Rome, and inhibited the Legates Proceed. 'Tis said also, that some others of the chief of the English Clergy, See Fox p. 96. and 962. Edit. 1610. whether it were conscientiously, or out of the same disaffection of theirs to Anne Bullen, I cannot tell, much disliked the same Divorce. §. 18 The King, for this, much displeased with both Cardinal and Clergy, first accuseth the Cardinal to have incurred a Praemunire, for having exercised his Legantine Office in his Dominions, without the King's Licence, contrary to a Statute made in the days of King Richard the Second. Yet had the King formerly been pleased to appear before him in Court, as the Pope's Legate, and his delegated Judge, together with Campegius, in the Cause of the King's Divorce. Upon this he is condemned, See Godw. Annal. An. Reg. Henr. 21. and all his Estate seized on by the King. Tho the Cardinal pleaded: That it was well known to his Majesty that he would not presume to execute his power Legantine before the King had been pleased to ratify it with his Royal Assent given under his Seal, which notwithstanding he could not produce, that and all his Goods being taken from him. See Godwin's Annals p. 107. who also (p. 119.) saith; See Godw. Annal. p. 107, and p. 119. that it was certain that Wolsey was Licenced to exercise his Authority Legantine. §. 19 After this fall of Wolsey; Next a Bill was given up in the Parliament held 1530. (and the Sum demanded from the Clergy, as conspiring with the Cardinal,) of an 100000 l. Charges, that the King had been put to, to obtain so many Instruments from Foreign Universities, which had decided this matter. From which Universities the King is said to have procured their Suffrages for his Divorce not without seeing several of them with great Sums of Money. Concerning which see the Testimonies of several Authors produced by Sanders (p. 49. etc.) Some of those he quotes saying, that they had Money offered to themselves; some, that they were Eye-witnesses of it received by others. [Tho (with your leave to make here a little digression touching this Controversy) these Universities, at least some of them, considered only the point of the unlawfulness of one marrying his Brother's Wife, when such former Marriage was consummate by carnal knowing of her (See the Determinations of Paris, and others in holinsh. (p. 924.) putting in the Clause; so that the Marriage be consummate.) Without considering that circumstance, whether Katherine was carnally known by her first Husband, which was denied by the Queen and her Advocates (Prince Arthur being thought somewhat infirm, and being but Fifteen years old when he Married her, and dying shortly after.) You may see, if you have the curiosity, what is said for the consummation of that Marriage in Fox Mon. p. 958. Edit. 1610. against it in Sanders de Schism Ang l. 1. l. p. 40. Yet, though the former Marriage had been consummate, many Learned Men of that Age of several Nations (amongst whom were Fisher Bishop of Rochester, and Tonstall Bishop of Duresme) whom you may find diligently reckoned up to the number of almost Twenty by Sanders de Schism Angli. 1. l. p. 42. 53, 54. writ Books in Justification, that the Marriage of Henry with Katherine was a matter dispensable. For though this was agreed on all sides, That Papa non habet potestatem dispensandi in impediment is jure divino naturali conjugium dirimentibus, sed in iis quae jure Canonico tantum dirimunt: Yet some of these Authors held first, that all the Impediments named in the Mosaical Law were not dirimentia conjugium jure divino naturali (which only now oblige Christians:) and then secondly that, in matter of Affinity, only primus gradus rectae lineae, as between Father and his Son's Wife, and not primus gradus lineae, collateralis or transversae, as between the Brother and his Brother's Wife, was such an Impediment, as did dirimere conjugium jure divino naturali, and indispensably. Others gathered the Law in Levit. 18.16. dispensable in some cases, from the express dispensation made therein Deut. 25.5. Now the preservation of Peace between the two Kingdoms of England and Spain is a motive for such dispensation much more considerable, than that mentioned in Deut. the preservation of the name and honour of the deceased. (See Card. Cajetan de Conjug. Reg. Angl. 6. c.) And for the general judgement of the Learned in this matter, and particularly of the Universities, after you have read the Story in Sanders, p. 49, 50, 51. concerning them and especially concerning Oxford, as likewise what is said by Lord Herbert. Hist. Hen. 8. p. 324, 325. See what the Act of Parliament 1. Mar. 1. c. saith of them. viz. That this Marriage betwixt Henry and Katherine was solemnised by the deliberate and mature consideration and consent of the best and most notable men in Learning, in those days, of Christendom. That the perverse affections of some, a very few, persons, for their own singular glory and vain reputation, pretended the same Marriage to be against the word of God: and to this intent caused the Seals as well of certain Universities in Italy and France to be gotten (as it were for a testimony) by the corruption with Money of a few light persons Scholars of the said Universities, as also the Seals of the Universities of this Realm to be obtained by sinister working, secret threaten, etc. And that Archbishop Cranmer in giving Sentence, that the said Matrimony was unlawful, took his Foundation, partly upon his own unadvised judgement of the Scripture, joining therewith the pretended testimonies of the said Universities: and partly upon bare and most untrue conjectures [i. e, concerning the consummation of the former Marriage of Katherine with Arthur.] And see what Lord H●rbert delivers of the hesitancy of the Germane Protestant Divines (being several times and that long after the Divorce made requested thereto by King Henry) to declare the Divorce lawful p. 448. and 379. where he saith, That for the Approbation of the Divorce proposed to the Germane Divines Luther, Justus Ionas, Philip Melancthon and others, they delayed to approve it, and the King was judiciously advised by his Agents from thence, not to require any thing of them, which would be too hard to grant. I have made this Digression to show you the diversity of opinions, which was in this difficult matter (that you may see the Pope stood not alone in his judgement:) and how the several interests of several times justified and condemned the same thing. Now to return to our matter in hand.] §. 19 The foresaid Sum of 100000 l. spent upon the Universities abroad was demanded by the Parliament from the Clergy at home; because it was said, that the Cardinal, and some other chief amongst them were, thro' their falsehood and dissimulation, the cause of this Foreign Expense: Which Sum they resolutely refusing to contribute, the whole Clergy are sued by the King, and condemned by the King's Bench in a Praemunire also, for receiving and acknowledging the Cardinal's Power Legantine, exercised by him ignorantly or presumptuously, without the King's consent and allowance first obtained. The Clergy, thus become liable, at the King's pleasure, to the Imprisonment of their Persons, and confiscation of their Estates, assemble themselves in the House of Convocation; offer to pay for their Ransom the demanded 100000 l. §. 20 But the King, having now no hopes of obtaining a Licence for his Divorce from the Pope, (who at this time stood much in awe of the Emperor, victorious in Italy, and a near Kinsman and Favourer of Queen Katherine) that the Pope's Decrees might be of no force against him, negociates also by his Agents with the Clergy, (whilst, in these fears,) to give him the Title of Supremacy in Ecclesiastical matters within his Dominions; making account that, this obtained, he had the assent of his own Clergy at his beck for the nulling of his former Marriage. Therefore, in the drawing up of the Clergies Petition to the King for release of the Praemunire, it was signified from the Court (cujus consilii Cranmerus & Cromwellus clam authores fuisse existimabantur; saith the Author Antiq. Brittanic. p. 325.) that a Title should be prefixed, wherein they should style the King ecclesiae & cleri Anglicani Protector & supremum Caput, or else the Petition would not be accepted. To which with some difficulty they agreed, so, as qualifying it with this Clause [Quantum per legem Christi licet.] But, the King again excepting at this limitation, as unworthy the Clergy (who either did or ought to know, and definitively instruct others, what Christ's Law did, or did not, allow) at last upon renewed threats this Clause also was procured to be omitted. See Antiquit. Brittannic. p. 326. Sed Regi (saith that Author) displicuit ancipitem dubiamque mitigationem & moderationem verborum a cleri sui Synodo, quae de Christi lege aut certa fuit, aut certa esse debuit, tam frigide proferri. Itaque Cromwellum ad Synodum iterum mandans, eam aut tolli voluit, aut clerum incursas Sanctionum paenas pati. Omnium igitur ex sententiis Rex sine ambiguitate ullâ ecclesiae Angliae supremum caput declaratus est. But yet this was not done; till after the Clergy, who much alleged, that the King, or some of his Successors might, upon this Title, ruin the Church of England in their ordering Spiritual matters without or against the Clergy thereof, had obtained a voluntary promise from him to this effect: That he would never by virtue of that Grant assume to himself any more power over the Clergy, than all others the Kings of England had assumed; nor that he would do any thing without them, in altering, ordering, or judging, in any Spiritual matters. See Bishop Fisher's Life published by Dr. Bayly. And this was the first Act of the Clergy, which, being so understood, as excluding all authority of the Western Patriarch over the Church of England, and transferring such authority for the future to the King is contrary to the Fourth Thesis: because some such authority was conferred on this Patriarch by Superior Councils. And which Act was so passed by them, that, as Dr. Hammond acknowledged, (of Schism 7. c.) it is easy to believe, See Church Gou. 1. Part §. 4. and §. 20. that nothing but the apprehensions of dangers, which hung over them by a Praemunire incurred by them, could probably have inclined them to it. §. 22 After the conceding of this Title of Supremacy to the King, and exclusion of the Pope's Authority out of his Dominions, and the voiding of all appeals made hence unto him; and after the King's Marriage to Anne Bullen also, but before the publication thereof; Cranmer, being now chosen Archbishop of Canterbury, upon the death of Warham, a Favourer of the Queen Katherine's Cause, Summons her to appear before him and some other Bishops and Commissioners; and, upon her neglect, solemnly dissolveth the King's former Marriage with her, and divorceth him from her. §. 23 But, the King's ends thus obtained, yet things rested not here. And how far only at the first they seem to have allowed it. But, whereas formerly till the Twenty fifth year of Henry the Eighth the Synods of the Clergy (saith Dr. Heylin §. 1. p, 7.) after called by the King's Writ, acted absolutely in their Convocations of their own authority, the Kings or Parliaments assent or ratification neither concurring nor required; and whereas by this sole authority, which they had in themselves, they made Canons, declared Heresies, convicted and censured persons suspected of Heresy, &c: Now, they having declared the King supreme Head of the Church, instead of the Pope the Western Patriarch, it seemed reasonable therefore that no Acts of the Church should stand good without the concurrence of the Head: And conducing much to this end (as I learn from the forenamed Dr) was a Petition or Remonstrance exhibited to the King by the House of Commons (after the Ice was broken) A. 1532. See Full●rs Appeal of Injured Innocence Pa. 2. p. 65. In which (saith he) they, desiring that the Convocation should be brought down to the same level with the Houses of Parliament, and that their Acts and Constitutions should not bind their Subjects, as before, in their Goods and Possessions, until they were confirmed and ratified by the Regal power, they shown themselves aggrieved, that the Clergy of this Realm should act authoritatively and supremely in the Convocation and they in Parliament do nothing but as it was confirmed and ratified by Royal assent. An Answer unto which Remonstrance (saith he) was drawn up by Dr. Gardiner then newly made Bishop of Winchester, and being allowed of by both Houses of Convocation was by them presented to the King. But the King not satisfied with this Answer resolved to bring them to his bent, and therefore on the Tenth of May sent a Paper to them by Dr. Foxe (after Bishop of Hereford) in which it was peremptorily required: that no Constitution or Ordinance shall be hereafter, by the Clergy Enacted, promulged, or put in execution, unless the King's Highness do approve the same, and his advice and favour be also interponed for the execution etc. Whereupon on the Fifteenth of the same Month they made their absolute submission. So Herald And thus the next step therefore of this Reformation was; that, the King so requiring it, they bond themselves by a Synodical Act for the time to come, not to assemble themselves at all without the King's Writ; and when assembled not to enact, promulge, or execute any Canons, Constitutions, Ordinances Provincial or Synodical, or by whatsoever name they shall be called, unless the King by his Royal assent command them to make, promulge, and execute the same. See for this the Preface of the Act of Parliament, Twenty fifth year of Henry the Eighth, 19 c. where it is said; that the Clergy of the Realm of England had not only acknowledged, that the Convocation of the same Clergy, is, always hath been, and aught to be assembled always by the King's Writ; but also, submitting themselves to the King's Majesty, had promised in verbo Sacerdotii, that they would never from henceforth presume to attempt, allege, claim, or put in ure, enact, promulge, or execute any new Canons, Constitutions, Ordinances, Provincial or other, or by whatsoever other name they shall be called; unless the Kings most Royal assent may to them be had, to make, promulge, and execute the same. (But they gave up also their power to execute any old Canons of the Church, without the King's consent had first thereto; as appears by what follows in the next Section.) The whole Debate with all the traverses and emergent difficulties which appeared herein (saith Dr. Heylin) are specified at large in the Records of Convocation 1532, which were well worthy the viewing. Now, if the First and Second Thesis' abovenamed stand good, this Act of the Clergy is utterly unlawful. For by this the Prince hath authority to hinder the Clergy from altering or reforming any former settled Doctrine in his Kingdom. As King Charles also in his Declaration before the 39 Articles manifesteth; that he will not endure any varying or departing in the least degree from the established Doctrine and Discipline of the Church of England; any varying; i. e, by the Bishops and Clergy in their Convocation. In what case then had the Reformation been, if former Princes, in the same language as King Charles, had used this pretended lawful power in prohibiting Bishops &c. to attempt, enact, promulge, &c any thing contrary to the, then, here settled, Popish Doctrines? To advance yet somewhat further. In the Preface of the same Act of Parliament the Clergy are also said (which thing neither Dr. Heylin, Dr. Hammond, §. 23. nor Dr. Fern, have sufficiently weighed in their Relations of the English Reformation) to have humbly besought the King's Highness, that the Constitutions and Canons Provincial or Synodal which be thought to be prejudicial to the King's Prerogative Royal, or repugnant to the Laws and Statutes of the Realm, or to be otherwise overmuch onerous to his Highness and his Subjects may be committed to the judgement of his Highness and of Thirty Two Persons, Sixteen of the Temporalty, and Sixteen of the Clergy of the Realm, to be chosen and appointed by the King's Majesty; and that such Canons as shall be thought by the more part of them worthy to be annulled, shall be made of no value; and such other of the Canons as shall be approved to stand with the Laws of God &c, shall stand in power. Constitutions and Canons Provincial and Synodal: not only such as were the sole Constitutions and Canons of the Synods of this Nation, which the like Synods may lawfully correct; but such as were also the Canons of superior Synods, which the Synods of this Nation could not lawfully annul. This appears, both by the practice of their abrogating and reforming of several Canons, that were such; (nay I think such were all that were reform:) and also by the Tenent, (See below §. 28. Statute 25. Hen. 8.21. c.) that all the Constitutions made only by man's authority are by the King, being supreme in his Dominions, as he thinks fit, mutable. To stand with the Laws of God: therefore any Canon, though it were not against the King's Prerogative or Law of the Realm, yet if thought by these Judges not to stand with the Laws of God, might be annulled. Shall be thought by the more part of them. Therefore an Act of the Laity in these Spiritual matters, if obtaining the consent only of one Clergyman, though all the rest oppose, nay if obtaining the consent of the King, though all the Clergy-Commissioners oppose, stands good, as being an Act of the major part. §. 25 In this Act of the Clergy, if it be supposed a Synodical request of the whole Clergy, and not only of some persons thereof more addicted to the King's Inclinations; and if Canons and Constitutions here be not restrained only to those that seem some way to entrench upon the rights of Civil Power, or to some Ecclesiastical external Rites and Ceremonies: I see not, but that the Clergy here gives away to the King and to the Laity, at least if assisted with one or two, or indeed without any, Clergy, their Synodical power to conclude and determine matters of Faith, and to order the Government of the Church as they shall think best; since all the former Canons and Constitutions Synodal are not about matters of External Rite and Ceremony; but some, doubtless, concerning matters of Faith, and such Christian Practices, and Ecclesiastical Government and Discipline, as are prescribed in the Holy Scriptures, and necessarily involve Faith; of all which Canons the 32 are now made Judges, what stands with God's Law or what is contrary thereto: and the Reformatio legum Ecclesiasticarum, drawn up partly in Henry the Eighth's, partly in Edward the Sixth's time, by such Commissioners (Reprinted 1640) is found to meddle not only with Canons repugnant to Civil Government, or with Rites and Ceremonies; but with matters of, the Divine Offices, and Sacraments, Heresies, &c, as appears in the very Titles of that Book. Now such Act of the Clergy must needs be most unjust and unlawful, if the First, or Second, or Seventh Thesis above-recited stand good §. 26 But, whatever sense these words in the Preface of the Act were, or may be, extended to, I do not think, that the Clergy at first intended any such thing, as to make the King or his Commissioners Judges of matters of Faith or Divine Truth; By which authority Princes might (as they also did) change Religion in this Kingdom at their pleasure; but imagined, that, as they obliged themselves to do nothing without the King's consent, so neither, in these matters especially, should the King do any thing without theirs: as may be gathered; First, by the Promise they obtained from the King at their giving him the Title of Supreme recited before. Secondly, by the Declaration of the Bishops against the Pope, See Fox. p. 971. wherein they allege against him the Third Canon of the Second General Council Enacting, ut controversiae ab Episcopis Provinciarum, ubi ortae sunt, terminentur; that all Causes shall be finished and determined within the Province where the same began, and that by the Bishops of the same Province: urged also by Bishop Tonstal in his Answer to Cardinal Poole. And Thirdly, By several of the said Bishops and particularly by this Tonstal's and Gardiner's (of whom Dr. Fern saith: that none could have written better against the usurped Papal Supremacy, Examine, Champ. 2. c▪ p. 69. than these Bishops did) retracting their acknowledging of such a Regal Supremacy: and that upon deprivation of their Bishoprics and Imprisonment of their persons, some in King Edward's, and some in Qu. Elizabeth's days: retracting, &c I suppose for this reason, because by sad experience they saw it much enlarged beyond those bounds, within which only they formerly had maintained it just. And Fourthly, By the early Act of Parliament 24. Henry 8.12. c. where, in the Preface it is said: That when any Cause of the Law Divine cometh in question, that part of the Body Politic called the Spirituality, now being usually called the English Church, is sufficient and meet of itself, without the intermeddling of any exterior person or persons, to declare and determine all such doubts; and where, in the Act, it is ordered, that such Causes shall have their appeals from the Archdeacon to the Bishop, and from the Bishop to the Archbishop of the Province, and there to be definitively and finally adjudged. Finally, i. e, without any further appeal to the King. Neither can it be showed, that expressly this authority or jurisdiction, [To repress, reform, correct, and amend all such Errors, Heresies, Abuses, Enormities, whatsoever they be, which by any manner of Spiritual Authority or Jurisdiction ought or may lawfully be repressed, reform &c, any Foreign Laws, Foreign Authority, Prescription, or any thing or things to the contrary thereof, notwithstanding,] though it was allowed to the King as a Branch of his Supremacy by the Parliament, was conceded or voted by the Clergy, or pretended to be so; but was built, only by consequence, upon the Clergies recognising him the supreme Head of the Church of England; as appears in the Preface of that Act 26. Hen. 8.1 c. By these things therefore it seems, that as yet all the Jurisdiction for determining Spiritual Controversies, that was taken from the Pope, was committed to the Community of the English Clergy, or finally placed in the Archbishop of Canterbury. But you will find by what follows, that it long rested not here, but was shortly after removed from hence into the hands of the King. And as it was thus with the Clergy; so in the Laity also in the Parliament its self (in the new power given of altering and dispensing with former Church Laws 25. Hen. 8.21. c.) there seemeth at first to have been a kind of jealousy upon the new introduced Supremacy, left it might afterward proceed to some exorbitancy as to changing something in the substance of Religion. Therefore in the forenamed Act they insert this Proviso. Provided always, this Act nor any thing therein contained shall be hereafter interpreted, that your Grace, your Nobles, and Subjects intent by the same to decline and vary from the Congregation of Christ's Church in any things declared by the Scriptures and the word of God necessary, concerning the very Articles of the Catholic Faith of Christendom, or any other things declared by the Scripture necessary for your and their Salvation; but only to make an Ordinance by Polities necessary and convenient to repress vice, and for good conservation of this Realm in peace, unity, and tranquillity, from rapine and spoil, ensuing much the old ancient Customs of this Realm on that behalf. Not minding to seek for any reliefs, succours, or remedies for any worldly things and humane laws in any case of necessity, but within this Realm at the hands of your Highness, which ought to have an Imperial power and authority in the same, and not obliged in any worldly Causes to any Superior. Upon which Proviso Bishop Bramhal hath this note (Schism Guarded p. 63.) That if any thing is contained in this Law for the abolishing or translation [i. e, from the Clergy] of power merely and purely Spiritual, it is retracted by this Proviso at the same time it is Enacted. CHAP. III. The Supremacy in Spirituals claimed by King Henry the Eighth. II. Head. §. 26 II. WE have seen how far the Clergy and Laity also at first seem to have proceeded in the advancing of the King's Supremacy. Concerning what Supremacy was afterward by degrees conferred on, or also claimed by, the Prince. Now to come to the Second thing I proposed to you: Concerning what Supremacy was afterward by degrees conferred on, or also claimed by, the Prince. After the Title then of Supreme was thus yielded by the Clergy, as likewise, that they would thenceforward enact or publish no Synodal Decrees or Constitutions without the consent first obtained of this their declared Supreme, It was thus Enacted by the Authority of Parliament 26. Hen. 8.1. c. 1. In the times of H. the 8th. That the King shall have and enjoy, united to the Imperial Crown of this Realm, all Jurisdictions to the said Dignity of Supreme Head of the same Church belonging: [which Jurisdiction how far it is understood to be extended, see 1. Eliz. 1. c. where it is Enacted] that such Jurisdictions, Privileges, and Preeminencies Spiritual and Ecclesiastical, as by any Spiritual or Ecclesiastical Power hath heretofore been or may lawfully be exercised or used for the Visitation of Ecclesiastical State and Persons, and for Reformation of all manner of Errors, Heresies, Schisms, &c, shall for ever by authority of this present Parliament be united and annexed to the Imperial Crown of this Realm. And further see the Act 37. Hen. 8.17. which runs thus. Whereas your most Royal Majesty is justly Supreme Head in Earth of the Church of England, and hath full authority to correct and punish all manner of Heresies, Errors, Vices, and to exercise all other manner of Jurisdictions commonly called Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction: Nevertheless the Bishop of Rome and his Adherents have in their Councils and Synods Provincial established divers Ordinances, that no Layman might exercise any Jurisdiction Ecclesiastical, or be any Judge in any Ecclesiastical Court; which Ordinances or Constitutions, standing in their effect, did sound to be directly repugnant to your Majesty's being Supreme Head of the Church, and Prerogative Royal, your Grace being a Layman.— And whereas, albeit the said Decrees by a Statute 25. Hen. 8. be utterly abolished; yet, because the contrary thereunto is not used by the Arch-Bishops, Bishops, &c (who have no manner of Jurisdiction Ecclesiastical, but by, under, and from, your Royal Majesty) it giveth occasion to evil disposed persons little to regard and to think the proceed and censures Ecclesiastical made by your Highness and your Vicegerent, Commissaries, &c, to be of little or none effect, whereby the people have not such Reverence to your most Godly Injunctions, as becometh them; In consideration, that your Majesty is the only and undoubted Supreme Head &c, to whom by Holy Scripture all power and authority is wholly given, to hear and determine all manner of Causes Ecclesiastical, and to correct vice &c: May it therefore be Enacted, that all persons as well Lay, as those that are Married, being Doctors of the Civil Law, who shall be deputed to be any Chancellor, Commissary, &c, may lawfully exercise all manner of Jurisdiction commonly called Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction, any Constitution to the contrary notwithstanding. And see Reformatio Legum Ecclesiasticarum tit. de Officio & Jurisd. omnium Judicum.— Rex tam in Episcopos, Clericos, &c, quam in Laicos, plenissimam jurisdictionem tam civilem, quam Ecclesitasticam exercere potest, cum omnis Jurisdictio & Ecclesiastica & Saecularis ab eo tanquam ex uno & eodem fonte derivantur. §. 27 Amongst which Jurisdictions I understand also Excommunication, Suspension, and Deprivation ab officio; of which see more below p. §. 46. Not that I affirm the King did ever claim the right of exercising, (himself,) this power of the Keys, but that he claimed this right (which is contrary to the First Thesis) that no Clergyman being a Member of the Church of England should exercise it in his Dominions in any Cause, or on any Person, without the leave and appointment of him the Supreme Head of this Church; nor any forbear to exercise, where he the Head commanded it: As, before the Reformation, the inferior Clergy might not exercise any Church Censure contrary to the commands of their lawful Spiritual Superiors; which Jurisdiction of their former Spiritual Superiors was now enstated on the King. On the King, Not as one subordinate to the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction herein: For so a Lay-person in foro exteriori or contentioso, as 'tis called (which Court the Church used before any Prince was Christian) may excommunicate sometimes, though not ligare or solvere in foro interiori or poenitentiali (yet for the exterior also, see what Provision is made against this in 16. Caroli 1. Can. 13.) But as one by God primarily invested with the disposal thereof; from whom the Ecclesiastical Governors within his Dominions derive this authority, as you have seen in the Preface of this Act. §. 28 Again in virtue of this Jurisdiction translated to the King, by another Act of Parliament 25. Hen. 8.21. c. the Supreme Power of giving all manner of Licences, Dispensations, Faculties, Grants, &c, for all Laws and Constitutions merely Ecclesiastical, and in all Causes not being contrary to the Scriptures and Laws of God, is not only taken from the Pope, but from the Clergy too, and is committed to the Secular Power, contrary to the Eighth Thesis. [The Statute saith thus. That, whereas it standeth with Natural Equity and good Reason, that in all humane Laws, in all Causes which are called Spiritual induced into this Realm, your Royal Majesty, and your Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons in Parliament [where you see the Parliaments Supremacy, as to admitting or abrogating Ecclesiastical Constitutions, joined with the Kings] have full power and authority, not only to dispense, but also to authorise some elect persons to dispense with those and all other humane Laws of this your Realm, as the quality of the persons and matter shall require: as also the said Laws to abrogate, admit, amplify, or diminish. Be it therefore Enacted, That from henceforth every such Licence, Dispensation, &c, that in cases of necessity may lawfully be granted without offending the Holy Scripture and Laws of God, necessary for your Highness, or for your Subjects, shall be granted in manner following: that is to say: the Archbishop of Canterbury shall have Power to grant them to your Majesty, etc. And if the foresaid Archbishop shall refuse or deny to grant any Licences, Dispensations, that then upon Examination had, in your Court of Chancery, that such Licences may be granted without offending against the Scriptures, your Highness shall command the Archbishop to grant them &c under such Penalties as shall be expressed in such Writ of Injunction. And it shall be lawful to your Highness, for every such default of the said Archbishop; to give Power by Commission to such two Spiritual Prelates, or Persons to be named by your Highness, as will grant such Licences and Dispensations.] Here the Supreme Power of dispensing with Ecclesiastical Constitutions is ascribed to the King and Parliament, as recognized Supreme Head of the Church; and the Archbishop made his Delegate; and, after the Archbishop, the King, or his Court of Chancery made the last Judge, what things in such Dispensations offend against Scripture, what not. §. 29 By virtue of the same Jurisdiction translated to the King by an Act of Parliament 25. Hen. 8.20. c. The necessity of the Metropolitan's being confirmed by the Patriarch is taken away; and the Clergy are bound, to admit and consecrate what person soever the King shall present to any Bishopric upon Penalty of incurring a Praemunire; and the Consecration is to be performed by such, and so many, as the King shall appoint. A thing contrary to the Third Thesis, and the Canons of former Superior Councils; and ruining the Church, when the Prince is Heretical. See the Statute. §. 30 Again; it is Enacted by the Statute abovementioned 26. Hen. 8.1. c. That the King should have full power, from time to time, to visit, repress, reform, correct, and amend, all such Errors, Heresies, &c, as is set down but now, §. 25. §. 31 Again; 25. Hen. 8.19. c. It is Enacted by the same authority; That all such Canons and Constitutions Provincial or Synodal which be thought prejudicial &c. as I have set it down before, §. 23. §. 32 The like is Enacted 32. Hen. 8.26. c. viz. That all such Determinations, Decrees, Definitions, and Ordinances, as, according to God's Word, and Christ's Gospel should at any time hereafter be set forth by the said Archbishop and Bishops and Doctors in Divinity, now appointed, or hereafter to be appointed by his Royal Majesty; or else by the whole Clergy of England [either by the one, or by the other, therefore is the latter not held necessary, but the former sufficient with the Confirmation of the Head] in and upon the matter of Christ's Religion and the Christian Faith &c by his Majesty's advice and confirmation under the Great Seal, shall be by all his Grace's Subjects fully believed, obeyed, observed and performed to all purposes and intents upon the pains and penalties therein to be comprised. [Where note that whereas under the Reformation private men are tied only to obey and believe the Definitions of Councils, when they are set forth according to God's Word; i. e, when private men think them to be so: Yet here this Liberty was thought fit to be restrained; and private men tied to believe these Definitions, when set forth as according to God's word; i. e, when the setters forth deem them to be so. To obey a thing defined according to God's Word, and to obey a thing defined as being according to God's word, are Injunctions very different.] §. 33 Again, whereas the Act 24. Hen. 8.12. c. set down before, §. 25. ordered Appeals in Causes Spiritual to be finally adjudged by the Archbishop of the Province: It is Enacted by Parliament 25. Hen. 8.19. c. First, That no manner of Appeals shall be made out of the Realm to the Bishop of Rome in any Causes or Matters of what Nature soever. Secondly, That, for lack of Justice in the Court of the Archbishop; Commissioners, by the King's Highness to be appointed, shall have full power and authority, to hear and definitively to determine every such Appeal, with the causes and all circumstances concerning the same; and no further Appeals to be made. These Commissioners therefore, (appointed by the King,) are the ultimate and unappealable Judges after the Archbishop in all Spiritual matters; of which doubtless many are concerning what is lawful or unlawful by God's Word; wherein according to the Canon when they were Causes of moment, Appeals were formerly made from the Bishop to a Synod, or to the Patriarch. §. 34 Again; 25. Hen. 8.14 c. It is Enacted by authority of Parliament: That no speaking, doing, or holding against any Laws called Spiritual Laws, made by authority of the See of Rome, by the Policy of Man which be repugnant to the Laws and Statutes of the Realm, or the King's Prerogative, shall be deemed to be Heresy. From which all that I would note is this: that the King and Parliament undertake to be Judges of Heresy, and do declare, that no Laws of the Realm nor the Prerogative assumed by the King have any thing of Heresy in them.— Again; it is Enacted by Parliament 34, 35. Hen. 8.1. c. That if any Spiritual Person or Persons shall preach or teach contrary to the Determinations which since An. Dom. 1540, are or shall be set forth by his Majesty as is aforementioned; that then every such Offender offending the third time contrary to this Act shall be deemed and adjudged an Heretic, and shall suffer pains of death by Burning. Where the King is made the ultimate Judge of Heresy, without any Appeal, as appears by the former-quoted Act 25 Hen. 8.19. c. contrary to the First and Seventh Thesis. And the Protestants, in justifying this Supremacy, must allow their own Condemnation, if teaching against any thing written in the Book called the Institution of a Christian Man; Or, A Necessary Doctrine for all sorts of People, set forth by the King's Authority at that time; or against the Six Articles, which were in the same Act Established; as likewise in 31. Hen. 8.14. c. the Publishing of which Act (saith Lord Herbert, p. 447.) gave not little occasion of murmur; since to revoke the conscience, not only from its own Court, but from the ordinary ways of resolving Controversies; to such an abrupt decision of the Common-Law, as is there [Stat. 31. Hen. 8.14. c.] set down, §. 35. n. 1. was thought to be a deturning of Religion from its right and usual course. Now to reflect a little upon these several Acts forequoted. 1. Whereas it is said by Bishop Bramhal (Schism Guarded §. 3. p. 262. the Title of which Section is, That Henry the Eighth made no new Law. See likewise his Vindic. p. 86.) 1. That these Statutes of Henry the Eighth, were only declarative of old Law, not enactive of new Law, proving it by the authority of Fitz-Herbert, and of the Lord Coke (Reports, Fifth Part.) And 2ly (Schism Guarded, p. 61, 62.) That these Statutes do attribute no Spiritual Jurisdiction to the King at all, save only an External Regiment by coactive Power in Ecclesiastical Causes in foro contentioso. [Fox the First of these, if you please to compare the Clauses of the Statutes before rehearsed, with the former Statutes of this Land diligently collected by the Lord Coke (Reports, §. 35. n. 2. Fifth Part) and with those also mentioned by Bishop Bramh. Vindic. 4. c. p. 63. etc. You shall find no such thing, if you take all and all the extent of King Henry's Statutes. You may find Appeals to the Pope (or other Foreign Judge,) and Bulls or Excommunications or Legations from him (except that of the Bishop of Canterbury who was Legátus natus) to have been prohibited by former Laws; that is, in some particular Cases, wherein the Prince conceived Himself or his Subjects to be injured thereby in his or their Temporal Rights, Profits, Securities, or also in some Ecclesiastical Indulgements obtained formerly from the Pope, (See that Indulgement granted to King Edw. the Confessor. Vobis & posteris vestris Regibus, etc. in Spelm. Conc. A. 1066 Bishop Bramhals Vindic. p. 66.) [This appears in that much urged Statute 16. Rich. 2.5. c. quoted in Vindic. p. 80. where, upon pain of a Praemunire, all are prohibited to purchase any Bulls or Sentences of Excommunication from Rome. But this is in certain Cases only (see Vindic. p. 81.) Cases indeed Ecclesiastical; but such as were conceived contrary to the Temporal Rights of the King and his Subjects (which, all Ecclesiastical matters (I hope) neither are nor are pretended to be) viz. these Cases. Pope's refusing the King's or other Laity's Presentment of a Person to the Benefices of the Church [that is of such a Person whose Orthodoxness and Canonicalness the Clergy cannot question.] Again; The Translation by the Pope of English Bishops out of the Realm without the King's assent, whereby (saith the Statute) the King's Liege Sages of his Council should be without his assent, and against his Will carried away and gotten out of his Realm, and the Substance and Treasure of the Realm shall be carried away, and so the Realm destitute as well of Council, as of Substance [surely these are Temporal Considerations] and so the Crown of England, which hath been so free at all times that it hath been in no Earthly Subjection, but immediately subject to God in all things [not absolutely as the Bishop represents it Vindic. p. 80. but in all things] touching the Regality of the same Crown, and to none other, should be submitted to the Pope, etc. [the Regality; (that is) in those Temporal things above named.] In these Cases Bulls, &c, from the Bishop of Rome were prohibited, as infringing the Civil Rights. And to this Statute in such case (it is said there) the Lords Spiritual gave their consent: But meanwhile making Protestations (saith the Statute) that it is not their mind to deny or affirm that the Bishop of Rome may not excommunicate Bishops, nor that he may make Translation of Prelates after the Law of Holy Church. And Richard the Second, notwithstanding this Act, was far from the denying the Pope's Supremacy in his Realms as to many other respects, as appears by his zealous supporting of Vrban the Sixth in it. 2. Rich. 2.7.] Again you may find perhaps Appeals, Bulls, &c, prohibited, in general, without the King's content first obtained thereto; But this not out of an intention of suppressing all such Appeals, or Ecclesiastical Laws or Censures whatsoever coming from the Pope or other Spiritual authority abroad, or out of an intention of denying these in several Cases to be rightfully belonging unto them: but only out of an intention to examine them first, whether any thing were contained in them prejudicial to the Temporal and Civil Rights, and Emoluments and Privileges of the Prince and of his Subjects, that the Mitre might not encroach upon the Crown; both which have their certain limits of Jurisdiction, and may do wrong one to the other. Such authority as this (then) in Church-matters you may find exercised by former Princes of England; or perhaps some other power used by them against the Church, and defended by the common Lawyers of those days, more than is justifiable. But, on the other side, I think you will not find either assumed by the Prince, or allowed to him by any Statutes before the times of Henry the Eighth, such Powers in Ecclesiastical matters, as some of these following. Namely; A Power to correct and reform all Errors and Heresies in Religion by such persons, as the Prince shall appoint to judge thereof, half of them being Laics, repealing also the former course of trial of them by the ordinary Church-Magistrates, as you may see below, §. 39 A Power to make and reverse Ecclesiastical Laws, altar the Church Liturgies, public Forms of administering the Sacraments, Ordinals, &c without the consent of the major part of the Clergy or any lawful Church Authority. A Power to hinder and prohibits the Clergy, that they may correct or reform any such Heresies, or may make or publish any such Ecclesiastical Decrees or Laws within the King's Dominions without his consent thereto first obtained. Without his Consent, not to examine, whether such their Constitutions might be any way prejudicial to the State Temporal (for this were but meet and just) but whether such be agreeable or repugnant to God's Word, and dangerous to the People's Salvation and Spiritual State. A Power thus in all Causes Ecclesiastical, Licences, Faculties, Dispensations to be the final Judge (by himself or by his Court of Chancery or by some other Deputies whom he pleaseth to choose) to whom Appeal may be made concerning what is agreeable, or what repugnant to the Holy Scripture. A Power to restrain all Foreign Appeals and Censures from thence, not only in all Cases mixed with the Interests of the Temporal Government, but also in all matters merely Spiritual and of Ecclesiastical Cognizance. A Power to prohibit or reverse any Ecclesiastical Constitutions of Councils Patriarchal or General, though in things wherein Temporal Regalities or Prerogatives, or the Temporal safety and peace of the people is not concerned; but, as I said, upon pretence of their being conceived to contain something repugnant to Gods Law. A Power to hinder that no Ecclesiastical Governors may call any Synod or Assembly within his Dominions, nor exercise in foro externo any Ecclesiastical Censures without his consent. A Power to command such persons to be induced and instituted in Ecclesiastical Benefices and Dignities, whom the lawful Ecclesiastical Power refuseth as Unorthodox or Uncanonical. See Schism Guarded p. 61.161. Vindic. p. 268. Lastly, A Coactive Power in foro externo so far extended, as that it leaves, for the Clergy (as independently belonging to them,) only an Internal Power or Jurisdiction in the Court of Conscience: or an Habitual Power of Preaching, Administering the Sacraments, exercising the power of the Keys in foro conscientiae, ordaining and degrading ecclesiastics; but without any Liberty actually or lawfully to exercise the same in any Prince's Dominions, if he denyeth it: without any Power allowed to the Clergy to summon Offenders in foro externo, and to punish them with the Spiritual Sword, either for their convicted crimes, or for non-appearance, and this whether Secular Princes either favour or oppose: without any Power to call or keep any public Assemblies for public Worship, for decision of Controversies in Religion, for making Church Laws, i. e, such as prejudice no Temporal Rights, and publishing and imposing the same Determinations and Canons (upon Ecclesiastical Censures) upon the Church's Subjects, in the several Dominions of Princes, whether they consent or resist. Without any Power of their electing and ordaining future Clergy in the several Dominions of Princes Christian as well as others; whenever these Princes shall propose or assent to the admission of no such persons, as they (I mean the lawful Church Authority) shall judge Orthodox and capable. Such Powers are not mentioned, at least clearly, by Bishop Bramhal to belong to the Clergy, but seem to be swallowed in the Coactive Power of the Prince. Such Powers were in the possession of the Church independently on Princes for the first Three Hundred Years. Such Powers being translated to the Secular Governors (when Christian) do arm them (when Christians Heretical) to change and overturn the Church in their Dominions as they please, whilst the Clergy ought not to contradict. Such Powers are said to belong to the Prince since the Reformation (and indeed without these the Reformation could not well have been effected) and I think are given to them in the forequoted Statutes. If these Powers are said not to belong to these Princes, let them name which of these are not. But Lastly, such Powers cannot be showed to have been given, or been due, to our Kings by the former Laws, unless we will believe that the Laws of the Land then contradicted that Obedience, which those Princes yielded to the Church; or that those Princes, even when most fallen out with the Church, would voluntarily forego so many of their rights. Thus much to the first Defence used by Bishop Bramh. §. 35. n. 3. That Henry the Eighth's Statutes were only declarative of the former Laws. For the second thing said by him, That King Henry the Eighth by these Statutes claimed only an External Coactive Power in Causes Ecclesiastical in foro contentioso; if by External Coactive Power he meaneth the exercising of all those Powers, which I have but now named, with Coaction and the Material Sword, than the Secular Prince, seems to assume and exercise several of those Powers which are only the Church's rights. But if by Coactive Power he meaneth only the Kings calling of the Clergy together to consult of Church Affairs, and his assisting with the Secular Sword their Constitutions and Decrees, and making their Laws his own by Temporal Mulcts and Penalties, and compelling particular Clergy, as well as Laity, to do that which the Church declares to be their duty; compelling, I say, with outward force, for herein the Bishop seemeth to place the King's Power in Spiritual matters [See Schism Guarded, p. 93. How can the Pope (saith he) pretend to any Coactive power in England, where the Power of the Militia and all Coactive force is legally invested in the King? And p. 92. The Primitive Fathers did assemble Synods and make Canons, &c: But they had no Coactive Power to compel any man against his Will; the uttermost they could do was to separate him from their Communion. And p. 166, Who can summon another man's Subjects to appear where they please, and imprison and punish them for not appearing without his leave? Likewise p. 168. and compare them with his former Saying, p. 92.] If thus the Bishop will have Secular Princes to have nothing to do in the making or hindering any Decrees or Laws of the Churchmen in matters merely Spiritual; but only to have such a sole dominion over the Secular Sword, as that none can use it but he, or by his leave, in the execution of such Laws, all is well: but then the former-quoted Statutes of Henry the Eighth show much more Power challenged, than the Bishop alloweth. This in Answer to the Bishop Secondly, If it be further said here touching that particular Statute of much concernment 26. Hen. 8.1. c. quoted before §. 26, and §. 25. [Namely; §. 35. n. 4. 1 That the King shall have full power from time to time, to visit, repress, reform, all such Errors, and Heresies, as by any manner of Spritual Authority &c lawfully may be reform, etc.] See §. 25. If it be said here; that the King hath only this power therein ascribed to him, to redress and reform the Errors and Heresies, which are declared such by the Church, by former Councils, or by the Synods of his Clergy; but, that he hath no power given him to judge or declare, what is Error, or Heresy. 1. First thus then he hath not all the power given him, which by any manner of Spiritual Authority or Jurisdiction may be exercised (as it follows in that Act) because there is a Spiritual Authority also, that may declare new Errors and Heresies, or that may reform such Errors, as have not been by Synods formerly declared such; and it seems this He hath not. Secondly, Thus the Clause ending the Act [any Custom, Foreign Laws, Prescription, &c, notwithstanding] is utterly useless; because no Foreign Laws, or Prescriptions deny this Authority to Kings, to reform Errors &c in their Dominions; so that they still confine themselves to the precedent Judgements of the Church. Thirdly, In the Act forequoted 25. Hen. 8.19. c. 'Tis granted to his Highness and Thirty Two Commissioners elected by him, to annul and make invalid what former Synodal Canons they think not to stand with the Laws of God; therefore they have power to judge, which Canons are such, and to reform them, i. e, to teach and declare the contrary truths to them, when thought by them Errors, against the judgement of former Synods, and without the judgement of a new Synod; and what is this but to judge and pronounce de novo, what is Error, and Heresy, Enormity, Abuse, & c? Fourthly, Lastly; how comes the King or his Commissioners to be made the ultimate judge (See before §. 31.25. Hen. 8.19. c.) in all Appeals touching Divine matters, if he or they cannot judge in these, what is Error? Since some Causes and Controversies may haply come before him, not determined by former Councils. And, for the Errors he reforms, if he is still to follow the judgement of his Clergy what are such Errors; how are there in these things Appeals admitted to him from the judgements of his Clergy? §. 36 This said to remove the misinterpretation of that Act, I will add to these Acts of Parliament which I have been reciting to you from §. 26. those words in the King's last Speech which he made in Parliament not long before his death; reprehending his Subjects for their great dissension in Opinion and Doctrine. If you know surely (saith he) that a Bishop or Preacher erreth or teacheth perverse Doctrine, Lord. Herb. Hist. p. 536. come and declare it to some of our Council or to us, to whom is committed by God the high authority, to reform and order such causes and behaviours, and be not Judges yourselves of your fantastical Opinions and vain Expositions. [Here making his Council or himself Judge of the Bishop's Doctrines.] And those words in King Henry the Eighth's Proclamation, 1543. made for the eating of White-Meats, Milk, Butter, Eggs, (heese, in Lent: where he saith That the mere positive Laws of the Church may be upon considerations and grounds altered and dispensed with by the public authority of Kings and Princes, In Fox pag. 1104. whensoever they shall perceive the same to tend to the hurt and damage of their people. [Unless perhaps he restrain damage here to Civil Affairs.] Contrary to the Eighth Thesis. And those words in Cromwell's Speech, when he presided, as the King's Vicar-General, over the Clergy assembled to state something in Controversies of Faith than agitated betwixt the Roman Church and Lutherans; who told them; That His Majesty would not suffer the Scripture to be wrested and defaced by any Glosses, Fox. p. 1078. any Papistical Laws, or by any Authority of Doctors or Councils. By which if this be meant; that we are not obliged to embrace the Doctrine of Scriptures according to those Determinations and Expositions which lawful Councils have made of them, it is contrary to the Fourth and Seventh Thesis, and overthrows the Government of the Church. See the same thing said on the King's behalf by the Bishop of Hereford against other Bishops urging the Doctors of the Church. Fox p. 1079. I will conclude with what Bishop Carleton in Jurisdict. Regal and Episcopal Epist. dedicat. §. 37 And Calvin upon those Words in Amos 7.13. [Prophecy not any more at Bethel for it is the King's Court;] say of these times. Bishop Carleton relateth out of Calvin, That Stephen Gardiner, Bishop of Winchester, being at Ratisbon in Germany upon the King's Affairs, and there taking occasion to declare the meaning of that Title, Supreme Head of the Church given to Henry the Eighth, taught; that the King had such a power, that he might appoint and prescribe new Ordinances of the Church, even matters concerning Faith and Doctrine, and abolish old. As Namely, ' That the King might forbid the Marriage of Priests; and might take away the use of the Cup in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, and in such things might appoint what he list. And there likewise Bishop Carleton confesseth; That when Henry the Eighth took this Title of Supreme Head, &c, though the sounder and more judicious part of the Church then understood the words of that Title so, as that no offence might justly rise by it [I suppose he means; in that sense, as himself takes it; which is: For the King to have a Jurisdiction Coactive in External Courts, binding and compelling men by force of Law and other External Mulcts and Punishments, to what the church in Spiritual matters defines. For this Bishop saith; that the Church is the only Judge of such matters (See before p. 4.) and in his whole Book, written purposely on this Subject, I do not find that he gives the King any Coactive Authority in Spiritual matters against any definition of the Church:] Yet (saith he) they that were suddenly brought, from their old Opinions of Popery not to the love of the Truth, but to the observance of the King's Religion, received a gross and impure sense of these words. But this gross sense is such, as Bishop Gardener expressed, and as I think some of these Instances in the Parliaments Acts, &c made above do confirm; though some Writers in our latter times seem to be somewhat unwilling to acknowledge it. And it is plain, that Calvin (in Amos 7.) understood those times (in which he writ) to have given Supremacy to Kings, and particularly to Henry the Eighth in this gross sense. Whilst he complains thus.— Et hodiè quam multi sunt in Papatu, qui Regibus accumulant quicquid possunt juris & potestatis; ita, ut ne qua fiat disceptatio de religione, sed potestas haec sit penes Regem unum, ut Statuat pro suo arbitrio quicquid voluerit, & sine controversiâ hoe firmum maneat. Qui initio tantoperè extulerunt Henricum Regem Angliae certè fucrunt inconsiderati homines. Dederunt illi summam rerum omnium potestatem; & hoc me semper graviter vulneravit: erant enim blasphemi, cùm vocarent ipsum summum caput Ecclesiae sub Christo. Hoc certè fuit nimium: Sed tamen sepultum hoc maneat, quia peccarunt inconsiderato zelo. Sed impostor ille [Stephen Gardiner] qui postea fuit Cancellarius hujus Proserpinae, quae hodiè illic superat omnes diabolos [he means Queen Mary] Ille, cum esset Ratisponae, non pugnabat rationibus (loquor de hoc postremo Cancellario qui Episcopus fuit Vintoniensis) sed quemadmodum jam caepi dicere, non multum curabat Scripturae testimonia, sed dicebat fnisse in arbitrio Regum, Statuta abrogare, & ritus novos instituere. Si de jejunio agitur, illud regem posse populo indicere, & jubere ut hoc vel illo die vescatur populus carnibus: licere etiam prohibene Sacerdotes a conjugio: licere etiam regi interdicere populo usum calicis in caenâ: licere regi statuere hoc vel illud in regno suo: Quare? Potestas enim summa est penes Regem. He goes on complaining. Certum quidem est Reges, si fungantur suo officio, esse & Patronos Religionis, & nutricios Ecclesiae. Hoc ergo summoperè requiritur a Regibus, ut gladio, quo praediti sunt, utantur ad cultum Dei asserendum [but of whom shall they learn the right cultus Dei? Of the Body of Churchmen? Then what will become of Galvinisme?] Sed interea sunt homines inconsiderati [such as Archbishop Granmer and others] qui faciunt illos nimis Spirituales. Et hoc vitium passim regnat in Germaniâ. In his etiam regionibus nimium grassatur [amongst the Genevois and the Swisseses] & nunc sentimus quales fructus nascantur ex illâ radice; quod sic Principes & quicunque potiuntur imperio putant se ita Spirituales esse, ut nullum sit amplius Ecclesiasticium regimen. Non putant se posse regnare, nisi aboleant omnem Ecclesiae authoritatem, & sint summi Judices tam in doctrinâ, quam in toto Spirituali regimine. Tenendum est igitur temperamentum, quia hic morbus semper in Principibus regnavit, ut vellent inflectere religionem pro suo arbitrio & libidine, & interea etiam pro suis commodis. Hodiè dolendae sunt nobis nostrae vices & deplorandae. Thus he goes on complaining of the reforming Princes in those times making themselves the summi Judices both in Ecclesiastical Doctrines and Government; Himself meanwhile, thus, being destitute of any Judge at all in these matters (the judgement of Seculars being (by his sentence) invalid) of the Church opposing him. To this of Calvin may be added what Dr. Fern saith, in his Consid. concerning Reform 2. c. 6. §. That the Bishops and Clergy under Henry the Eighth may seem, at least in words and expression, to have overdone their work; not in that part which they denied to the Pope, but in that part which they attributed to the King. [I add, which part wrongly attributed to the King, by consequence they faultily denied, if not to the Pope, yet to some other, whose right it was: And then I ask what person or persons this should be?] CHAP. IU. The Supremacy claimed by King Edward the Sixth. §. 38 NExt to come to the Times of Edward the Sixth. Here we find the Power and Privileges of the King's Supremacy nothing diminished: 2. In the times of Edward the Sixth. but all those by Act of Parliament confirmed to Edward the Sixth, which were formerly conceded to Henry the Eighth. §. 39 1. First, Whereas there had been in former Ages several Parliament Statutes made in Confirmation of the Determinations of the Church, and concerning the Trial of Heretics by the Bishops their Ordinaries [As, that Act, 2. Hen. 4.15. That none shall preach, hold, teach, or instruct contrary to the Catholic Faith, or Determination of Holy Church; and if any person shall offend in this kind, that the Diocesan shall judicially proceed against him; and that Act, 2. Hen. 5.7. That, for so much as the Cognizance of Heresy belongeth to the Judges of Holy Church, and not to the Secular Judges, such persons indicted shall be delivered to the Ordinary of the Places to be acquitted or convicted by the Laws of Holy Church;] we find these Statutes repealed by King and Parliament 1. Edw. 6.12. c. And when-as they were again revived by Queen Mary 1, and 2. Mariae 6. c. with this Preface: for the eschewing and avoiding of Heresies, which of late have much increased within this Realm, for that the Ordinaries have wanted authority to proceed against those that were infected therewith; we find them again repealed, as soon as Queen Elizabeth came to the Crown. 1. Eliz. 1. c. the Trial of Heresies and Heretics by the Clergy according to the Determinations and Laws of Holy Church being admitted or excluded here, according as the Prince was Catholic or Reformed. §. 40 Further; we find it affirmed in the Act 1. Edw. 6.2. c. That all authority of Jurisdiction Spiritual and Temporal is derived and deduced from the King's Majesty, as Supreme Head of the Church and Realm of England. Consequently (in 1. Edw. 6.2. c.) we find ordered, That no Election be made of any Bishop by the Dean and Chapter; but that the King by his Letters-Patents shall confer the same to any person whom he shall think meet, and a Collation so made stand to the same effect, as though a Conge-d'-eslire had been given etc. That all Processes Ecclesiastical shall be made in the name and with the stile of the King, as in Writs at Common-Law, and the Teste thereof shall be in the name of the Bishop. These likewise to be sealed with no other Seal but the Kings, or such as should be authorized by him. Concerning which Act, thus Dr. Heylin candidly (Hist. of Reform. p. 51.) By the last Branch thereof it is plain, that the intent of the Contrivers was by degrees to weaken the Authority of the Episcopal Order by forcing them from their hold of Divine Institution, and making them no other than the King's Ministers only, his Ecclesiastical Sheriffs to execute his Mandates. And of this Act such use was made (though possibly beyond the true intention of it) that the Bishops of those times were not in a capacity of conferring Orders, but as they were thereunto impowered by especial Licence. [Where he quoteth out of Sanders what is set down below §. 145.] Which (saith he) being looked on by Queen Mary not only as a dangerous diminution of the Episcopal Power, but as an odious innovation in the Church of Christ: She caused this Act to be repealed, leaving the Bishops to depend on their former [i. e, Divine] Institution; and to act in all things, which belonged to their Jurisdiction, in their own Names and under their own Seals, as in former times. In which Estate they have continued, without any legal interruption, from that time to this. Thus Herald Now to go on. Consequently we find (in 2. Edw: 6.1. c.) the King and Parliament authorising Arch-Bishops, Bishops, etc. by virtue of their Act, to take Informations concerning the not using of the Form of Common-Prayer &c therein prescribed; and to punish the same by Excommunication etc. And in Stat. 5, 6. Edw. 6.1. c. it is Enacted likewise concerning the same Common-Prayer Book Established by Parliament. That all Arch-Bishops, Bishops &c shall have full power and authority by this Act to correct and punish by Censures of the Church all persons, who shall offend against this Act and Statute. Which Clause, by virtue of this Act, and the like, implies, that the Bishops might not excommunicate and use the Church Censures for that matter without the King and Parliament's Licence; or aught to excommunicate in all matters, wherein the King and Parliament command it. Whereby we may understand more clearly the meaning of that Act (forementioned p. 44. §. 26.) 26. Hen. 8.1. c. and that 1. Eliz. 1. c. That the Spiritual Jurisdiction, there ascribed to the King or Queen, involves the Jurisdiction of Excommunication, as well as others; not for the King to exercise this himself, but to appoint when and in what matters the Clergy within his Realm shall execute, or not execute, it: so that they derive the power of exercising of this Ecclesiastical Censure in his Dominions also from the King; contrary to the Second and Third Thesis. And indeed if the Clergy may not make nor enjoin any new or old Spiritual Laws, may not correct what they judge Heresies, Errors, Vices, &c, without the King's consent had thereto (See the Acts set down before §. 31, 32, 33, etc.) it is but reasonable, that they should not excommunicate his Subjects without his consent, for not obeying such Laws, or for being thought guilty of such Crimes. And this is the reason, I suppose, of Dr. Heylins' Observation (Hist. of Reform. p. 94.) That in those times the Wings of Episcopal Authority were so clipped, that it was scarce able to fly abroad; the Sentence of Excommunication, wherewith the Bishops formerly kept in awe both Priest and People, not having been in use and practice from the first of King Edward: and, of that Suit of Latimer to the King in his Sermon before him quoted ibid. That the Discipline of Christ in the Excommunication of open Sinners might be restored and brought into the Church of England. §. 41 Consequently in the Act of Parliament 3, and 4. Edw. 6.11. c. We find the King's Power in Spirituals delegated to Thirty Two Persons, half Seculars, to be nominated by him (as was done in Henry the Eighth's days, in 35. Hen. 8.16. c. 27. Hen. 8.15. c. 25.19. c.) who are authorized to reform the former Laws of the Church: and these reformed Laws only, established by a major part of them, and published by the King's Proclamation, thence forward to stand in force. [The Statute runs thus. Albeit the King's Majesty ought most justly to have the Government of his Subjects, and the Determinations of their Causes as well Ecclesiastical, as Temporal; [therefore you see the Statutes, concerning the Bishops determining Ecclesiastical Causes, repealed in Statute 1. Edw. 6.12. c. abovementioned] yet the same, as concerning Ecclesiastical Causes, having not of long time been put in ure, nor exercised by reason of the usurped Authority of the Bishop of Rome, is not perfectly understood nor known of his Subjects and therefore may it please his Highness that it may be Enacted &c, that the King's Majesty shall, from henceforth during Three years, have full power to nominate and assign by the advice of his Council Sixteen persons of the Clergy (whereof Four to be Bishops) and Sixteen of the Temporalty (whereof Four to be learned in the Common Laws of this Realm) to peruse and examine the Ecclesiastical Laws of long time here used, and to gather, order and compile such Laws Ecclesiastical, as shall be thought to his Majesty, his said Council, and them, or the more part of them, convenient to be used, practised or set forth within this his Realm, in all Spiritual and Ecclesiastical Courts and Conventions. And that such Laws compiled by the said Thirty Two Persons or the more number of them, and set forth by the King's Majesty's Proclamations shall, by virtue of this present Act, be only taken and put in ure for the King's Ecclesiastical Laws of this Realm, and no other: Any Law, Statute, or Prescription to the contrary hereof notwithstanding.] §. 42 Again, we find, in the same Act, Six Prelates, and Six others, such as the King should nominate, delegated by the same authority to make a new Form of Consecration of Bishops and Priests; and this, devised by them, and set forth under the Great Seal, to be used, and none other. The words are these. Forasmuch as, that concord and unity may be had within the King's Majesty's dominions [some it seems then devising to themselves new Forms of Consecration and Ordination cut of dislike of the Superstitions of the old] it is requisite to have one uniform manner for making and consecrating of Bishops and Priests; be it therefore Enacted, that such Form, as by Six Prelates and Six other Men of this Realm Learned in God's Law, by the King to be appointed, or by the most Number of them shall be devised for that purpose, and set forth under the Great Seal, shall by virtue of this present Act be lawfully used, and none other; any Law, Statute, or Prescription, to the contrary hereof notwithstanding. Here the King and Parliament assume power, to abrogate the former common Rituals of the Church, and, by their Delegates, to constitute, and by their sole Act, to authorise, new, without any consent and ratification given thereto by any Ecclesiastical Synod. And in this new Book of Ordination was inserted this Oath of the King's Supremacy and renunciation of all Jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome to be taken by every one entering into Holy Orders. I from henceforth shall utterly renounce and forsake the Bishop of Rome, and his Authority, Power, and Jurisdiction. And I shall never consent nor agree that the Bishop shall practise exercise or have any manner of Authority, Jurisdiction or Power within this Realm: but shall resist the same at all times to the uttermost of my power. And I from henceforth will accept, repute, and take the King's Majesty to be the only Supreme Head on Earth of the Church of England. And to my Wit and uttermost of my Power I will observe and defend the whole Effects and Contents of all and singular Acts and Statutes made and to be made within this Realm in derogation, extirpation and extinguishing of the Bishop of Rome and his Authority; and all other Acts and Statutes made or to be made in Confirmation and Corroboration of the King's Power of the Supreme Head in Earth of the Church of England, etc. Here is the Clergy tied to swear, as to all Acts of the Civil Power already past, so indefinitely and beforehand to all also that are to come, which may derogate any thing from the Pope's power, or add to the Kings, in Spiritual matters; as if no bounds or limits at all were due thereto. §. 43 Again; in the Sixth Year of King Edward, the whole Synod of the Clergy, if we may credit the relation of Mr. Philpot, See Fox p. 1282. in the Convocation 1. Mariae did grant Authority to certain persons to be appointed [not by them, but] by the King's Majesty to make Ecclesiastical Laws: [where it seems to me somewhat strange, that the Synod should now de novo give to the King what was before assumed as his Right.] And accordingly, a Catechism, bearing the name of the Synod, was set forth by those persons nominated by the King without the Synods revising or knowing what was in it; though a Catechism (said Dr. Weston the Prolocutor 1. Mariae) full of Heresies. This Book being then produced in Convocation, and denied by the Synod to be any Act of theirs, Philpot urged it was; because the Synodal Authority (saith he) was committed to certain persons to be appointed by the King's Majesty, to make such Spiritual Laws as they thought convenient and necessary. Which Argumentation of Philpots seems to be approved by Dr. Fern in Consid. upon the Reform. 2. chap. 9 sect. Here then the Synod grants Authority in Spiritual matters, that they know not who shall in their name establish that which they please, without the Synods knowing either what Laws shall be made, or who shall make them: which is against the First and Second Thesis; and is far from adding any just authority to the Ecclesiastical Constitutions of those times; or to any Acts, which are thus only called Synodal, because the Synod hath in general given, away their Power to those who make them afterward, as themselves think fit. Whereas to make an Act lawfully Synodical, the Consent of the Clergy must be had; not to nominate, in a Trust which Christ hath only committed to themselves, in general another Lawgiver; viz. the King or his Commissioners; (for (thus) King Edward will choose Cranmer and Ridley; and Queen Mary will choose Gardiner and Bonner to prescribe Laws for the Church:) but to know, approve, and ratify in particular every such Law, before it can be valid. §. 44 Besides these Acts of Parliament and Synod, the manner of Supremacy then ascribed to the Prince yet further appears in the Imprisonment of Bishop Bonner in the First year of King Edward, for making such an hypothetical Submission, as this, to the King's Injunctions and Homilies then by certain Commissioners sent unto him: I do receive these Injunctions and Homilies, See Fox p. 1192. with this Protestation, that I will observe them, if they be not contrary and repugnant to God's Law, and the Statute and Ordinance of the Church; the fault imputed here to him, I suppose, being, that he refused to obey any Injunctions of the King, when repugnant to the Statute and Ordinance of the Church; for which Fox calls this Protestation Popish. But the manner of this Supremacy appears yet more specially in the several Articles proposed to be subscribed by Bishop Gardiner, § 45. n▪ 1. upon his refusing to execute or submit to divers particular Injunctions of King Edward in Spiritual matters imposed upon the Clergy; the Subscription required of him was,— To the Book of Homilies, affirmed to contain only godly and wholesome Doctrine, and such as aught by all to be embraced;— To new Forms of Common-Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments,— and to the denial of Real Presence or of Transubstantiation; if any thing in that Form may may be said to oppose either of these:— To the new Form of Consecration of Bishops and Priests;— To the disannulling and abolition of the former Church Liturgy and Canon of the Mass, and of the Litanies to Saints, and Rituals of the Church;— To the abolition of Sacred Images, and Sacred Relics;— To the permission of Marriage to the Clergy;— To the acknowledging, that the Statute of the Six Articles was by Authority of Parliament justly repealed and dis-annulled;— To the acknowledging, that the appointment of holidays and Fasting-days (as Lent and Ember-days) and the dispensing therewith, is in the King's Majesty's Authority and Power, as Supreme Head of the Church of England:— To the acknowledging, that Monastic Vows were Superstitious and the Religious, upon the dissolution of their Monasteries, lawfully freed from them: as likewise, that the suppressing and dissolution of Monasteries and Convents by the King was done justly, and out of good reason and ground. For all which see the Copy of the Second, and of the Last, Articles sent to Bishop Gardiner, in Fox p. 1234, and 1235. In which Articles the King's Supremacy is thus expressed, in the Second of the First Articles sent to him: That his Majesty as Supreme Head of the Church of England hath full Power and Authority to make and set forth Laws, Injunctions, and Ordinances concerning Religion, and Orders in the said Church for repressing of all Errors and Heresies, and other enormities and abuses; so that the same alteration be not contrary or repugnant to the Scripture and Law of God (as is said in the Sixth of the Second Articles sent to this Bishop.) [Now how far this repressing and reforming of Errors, etc. claimed by the King, did extend, we may see in those points but now named.] In the Fifth: That all Subjects who disobey any his said Majesty's Laws, Injunctions, Ordinances [in such matters] already set forth and published, or hereafter to be set forth and published, ought worthily to be punished according to his Ecclesiastical Law used within this his Realm. Again; in the 7.11, 12.14.16. of the Third Articles sent to the same Bishop: That the former Liturgies of the Church, Mass-Books &c, that the Canons forbidding Priests Marriage &c, are justly taken away and abolished: and the new Forms of Common-Prayer, and of Consecration of Bishops and Priests are justly established by Authority of Parliament, and by the Statutes and Laws of this Realm; and therefore aught to be received and approved of all the faithful Ministers of God's word. Where note; That tho, in some of these Articles, §. 45. n. 2. the Authority of Parliament is mentioned; yet in none of these is any thing said of the consent of the Clergy as necessary to make such Regal or Parliamentary Injunctions in Ecclesiastical matters valid. From which may be collected; That when the Synodal consent of the Clergy is any where else mentioned, as sometimes it is, (See the Letter of the King and Council to Bishop Bonner, Fox p. 1186, and the King's Message to the Rebels of Cornwall, Fox p. 1189:) it is not to add any Authority to those Injunctions thereby; (which Injunctions were imposed on the Clergy before any Synodal consent of the Clergy was either given or asked:) but to propose the judgement and example of the Clergy consenting, as a motive to render others, that stand out, conformable; as whose judgement they ought to reverence, and whose example they ought to follow; not, as whose Decree and Constitution they ought to obey. And if you wonder, why the King and Parliament of those days never pleaded this last (as you shall never find it pleaded by them); the reason (I conjecture) was (besides that they were conscious of some changes made by them of these Ecclesiastical Judges, displacing those who would not conform to their Inclinations; which rendered them not so authentical) because they saw, that the Laws of this National Clergy could stand in no force, by virtue of their Office or any Commission from Christ; but that so would also the Laws of the Church and her Synods, which were Superior to the English Clergy, and which were contrary to the Laws of this National Synod; and so would void and make them of none effect. And if the King by virtue of his Supremacy urged his, and his Subjects, freedom from the former Laws and Constitutions of the Church Universal; so must he, from the present Laws of his own Church National: He, and his Subjects, being tied in no more Duty to the one, than to the other; nor in so much. §. 46 If you would know how Bishop Gardiner behaved himself in this Trial; it was with great perplexity and distraction: as neither knowing now, how, safely, to recall and recant that Supremacy of the King in Spirituals, which he had formerly acknowledged and sworn to; nor how, in that Duty which he owed to the Church, to obey those particular Injunctions, which the King imposed upon him by virtue of this Supremacy acknowledged by him; and so he incurred, for this latter, deprivation and imprisonment. And perhaps it may be thought a just judgement from God, that he should be thus ensnared and undone by that sense of Supremacy; of which he had been, in Henry the Eighth's days, both at home and abroad, See §. 37. as you have heard from Calvin, so zealous an Abettor. §. 47 I will conclude these Evidences under Edward the Sixth, with what is said in Antiquit. Brittannic. (p. 339. which quotes for it the Archives) touching the resentment of their lost Synodal Authority which some of the Clergy shown in a Synod called by Archbishop Cranmer, in the First Year of King Edward's Reign, for the furthering of a Reformation, though he could effect nothing therein. In which Synod the Clergy (now too late perceiving, that, not only the Pope, but themselves, had lost their former Ecclesiastical Power; and that the King and Parliament ordered Spiritual Affairs as they pleased, without their consents) requested, that, at least, the rest of their Convocation might be joined, with the House of Commons; as the Bishops were, with the Lords: that so they might have a Vote also in passing Church matters; but this request would not be granted them. The Author's words are these,— Animadverterunt Praelati omnem vim authoritatemque Synodi non modò diminutam, sed penitus fractam eversamque esse; postquam Clerus in verbo Sacerdotis Henrico Regi promisisset, sine authoritate Regiâ, in Synodo se nihil decreturos; [or indeed that the King might decree what he pleased without the Authority of the Synod: for such a Supremacy was either granted to, or assumed by, the King.] Quâ Ecclesiasticarum rerum potestate abdicatâ, Populus in Parliamento caepit de rebus divinis, inconsulto Clero, sancire; tum absentis cleri privilegia & immunitates sensim detrahere; juraque duriora, quibus Clerus invitus teneretur, constituere. Haec discrimina pati Clericis iniquum atque grave visum est. Proinde petierunt, ut in Concilio inferiori Praelati Clerique procuratores cum populo permixti de Republicâ & Ecclesiâ unà consulant etc. Thus that Author. And you may see also the Petition itself lately Printed out of a Manuscript of Archbishop Cranmers by Mr. Stillingfleet Irenicum 2. Part 8. c. Where, seeking too late to recover their former Steerage in Ecclesiastical Affairs now transacted in the Court of Parliament, the Lower House of Convocation prefers these Requests, That, Whereas in a Stat. 25. Hen. 8. the Clergy had promised in Verbo Sacerdotii never from thenceforth to Enact &c any new Canons, Constitutions &c unless the King's Assent and Licence may to them be had &c: therefore they desire that the King's Majesty's Licence may be for them obtained, authorising them to attempt and commune of such matters, and therein freely to give their consent; which otherwise they may not do, upon pain and peril premised. That either the Clergy of the Lower House of the Convocation may be adjoined and associate with the Lower House of Parliament; or else, that all such Statutes, as shall be made concerning matters of Religion, may not pass, without the sight and assent of the said Clergy; [or (as it runs in the Second Petition) the said Clergy not being made privy thereunto, and their Answers and Reasons not heard] That [since the former were annulled] Ecclesiastical Law's may be established in the Realm by Thirty Two persons, or so many as shall please the King to appoint, etc. That all Judges Ecclesiastical proceeding after those Laws may be without danger and peril. That, whereas they were informed, that certain Prelates and other Learned Men were appointed to alter the Service in the Church and did make certain Books &c: the said Books may be seen and perused by them, for a better expedition of Divine Service etc. That such matters as concern Religion, which be disputable, may be reasoned and disputed amongst them in this House; whereby the Verity of such matters shall the better appear etc. Thus laboured then the poor Clergy to obtain a joint share at least with the Parliament and civil State, in transacting the Affairs of the Church. And Dr. Heylin (in Reform. Justified §. 4. p. 21.) grants thus much, That the Censures of the Church were grown weak, if not invalid, and consequently, by degrees, became neglected; ever after that King Henry the Eighth took the Headship on him, and exercised the same by a Lay Vicar-General: and p. 20, That the Power and Reputation of the Clergy was under foot; and therefore the Authority of Parliament of more use, than afterward in times well balanced and established [meaning those following times, wherein the Clergy were now changed and fashioned to the inclinations of the Prince.] And, as for these days of King Edward; what Authority concerning Spiritual matters not only the people, but the new Divines of Edward, acknowledged and enstated in the King and Parliament, may appear from that Letter of Bishop Hooper, when in Prison, sent to the Synod called in the beginning of Queen Mary: Episcopis, Decanis &c. wherein he citys them before the High Court of Parliament, ●ox p. 1933. as the competent Judge in those Controversies, i. e, for so far as any man can be Judge. In this Letter, after having urged Deut. 17.8. because of the mention made there, of a Judge besides the Priest; Vo● omnes (saith he) obtestor, ut causam hanc vel aliam quamcunqne, ob religionem ortam inter nos & vos deferre dignemini ad supremam Curiam Parliamenti; ut ibi utraque pars coram sacro & excelso senatu sese religiosè & animo submisso, judicio & authoritati Verbi Dei subjiciat. Vestra ipsorum causa certè postulat, ut palam e. c lights inter nos componantur; idque coram competenti judice. Quid hoc est igitur? Quo jure contenditis? Vultis & nostri, & causae nostrae testes, accusatores & judices esse? Nos tantùm legem & evangelium Dei in causà religionis judicem competentem agnoscimus. Illius judicio stet vel cadat nostra causa. Tantum iterum atque iterum petimus, ut coram competenti judice detur nobis amicum Christianumque auditorium. Non vos fugit, quomodo publicè, palam, & in fancy ac in presentiâ omnium statuum hujus regni, in summâ curià Parliamenti, veritas verbi Dei per fidos, doctos, & pios ministros de vestrâ impiâ Missâ gloriosè victoriam reportavit. Quae, quocunque titulo, tempore, universalitate, splenduit, ubi per Sanctissimum Regem Edvardum 6. ad vivum lapidem Lydium verbi Dei examinari, per proceres, heroas, ac doctos hujus regni, erat mandatum, statim evanuit etc. Here that Bishop professeth, when any do oppose a Synod in a Cause of Religion, not the Synod, but the Parliament, the competent Judge therein; and urgeth, if I rightly understand him, the just Authority thereof in King Edward's time for putting down the Mass. Will he then stand to the Parliaments judgement; which as it was then affected, would have cast him? It seemeth, Not; by that he faith [Tantum legem Dei in causâ religionis judicem competentem agnoscimus. Illius judicio stet vel cadat causa nostra.] By whose mouth then shall the Scripture decide it; that Sentence may be executed accordingly on him, a Prisoner for this Controversy? By the Clergies? No. By the Parliament's? No; for he makes sure to wave that in his Letter? By the Scripture then its self? But this is urged, by both sides, to speak for them; and saith not one word more after the Cause heard by the Parliament, than it did before. So that, in nominating no other final Judge, the Bishops Request here in sum is; that his Cause may never be tried by any Judge. CHAP. V King Edward's Supremacy disclaimed by Qu. Mary. §. 48 AFter King Edward's Death, in the beginning of Queen Mary's Reign (a Princess otherwise principled, The former Supremacy Disclaimed by Q. Mary and by the Bishops in her days; and the Pope's Supremacy re-acknowledged. ) all that had been done in the Two former Kings Reigns, by Prince, by State, or by Clergy; in setting up a new Lay-Supremacy in Spirituals; in restraining the former Power and Supremacy of the Church; in innovating the Forms, of Divine Service and Administration of the Sacraments, of Ordination, of Church Rites and Discipline, and Jurisdiction; in disannulling several former Ecclesiastical Canons and Constitutions, and composing new ones; All was now, by an equal Authority of Prince, Clergy, and State, reversed, repealed, ejected; and Religion, (only rendered much poorer) as for Temporals, put into the same course, which it had in the twentieth Year of Henry the Eighth; before a new Wife, or a new Title, was by him thought on. So that any new Reformation, to come afterward, must begin to build clearly upon a new Foundation; not able to make any use of the Authority of the former Structure, being now, by the like Authority, defaced and thrown down. §. 49 This Restitution of things, made in Queen Mary's days, will chief appear to you; in the Statute 1. Mar. 2. chap, where, the ancient Form of Divine Service &c, used in Henry the Eighths' days, is restored; as being the Service (saith the Act) which we and our Forefathers found in this Church of England, left unto us by the Authority of the Catholic Church: And the final judgement of Ecclesiastical matters restored to the Church. and several Acts of Henry the Eighth, and Edward the Sixth, that abrogated some former Ecclesiastical Laws &c, or introduced new Forms, of Divine Service, of Election and Ordination of Bishops and Priests, are repealed. And in 1, and 2. Mar. 6. chap. where the ancient way of judging Heresies and Heretics first at the Tribunals of the Church is set on foot again; and the Statutes to this purpose, which were repealed upon the coming in of a new Supremacy, are revived. §. 50 And in 1, and 2. Mar. 8. c, where the Pope's Supremacy is re-acknowledged; when also (as Fox observes p. 1296.) the Queen's Style concerning Supremacy was changed; and in it Ecclesiae Anglicanae Supremum Caput omitted: as also Bonner Bishop of London, being Chief of the Province of Canterbury in the Restraint of the Archbishop, did omit, in his Writs to the Clergy, Authoritate Illustrissimae &c legitime suffulttus. In which Statute also the whole Nation, by their Representative in Parliament, ask pardon and absolution from their former Schism, repealing the Oath of the King's Supremacy, and all the Acts made formerly in Henry the Eighth, and Edward the Sixth's time against the Pope's Supremacy: and amongst them particularly this Act of the Submission of the Clergy, set down before §. 22. and §. 23; whereby the Clergy had engaged themselves to make nor promulge no Ecclesiastical Canons without the King's consent; and bad also besought the King to delegate some persons whom he pleased, to reform Errors, Heresies &c, i, e. to do the Offices of the Clergy. In which Statute also the Clergy, in a distinct Supplication beginning, Nos Episcopi & Clerus Cantuariensis Provinciae in hac Synodo congregati &c, calling the former Reformation perniciosum Schisma, do petition to have the Church restored to her former Rights, Jurisdictions, Liberties, taken from her by the injustice of former times. [The words are, Insuper Majestatibus vestris supplicamus, pro suâ pietate efficere dignentur, ut ea, quae ad jurisdictionem nostram & libertatem Ecclesiasticam pertinent, sine quibus debitum nostri pastoralis officii & curae animarum nobis commissae exercere non possumus, nobis superiorum temporum injuriâ ablata, restituantur; & ea nobis & Ecclesiae perpetuò illaesa & salva permaneant: & ut omnes leges, quae hanc nostram jurisdictionem & libertatem Ecclesiasticam tollunt, seu quovis modo impediunt, abrogentur, ad honorem Dei etc.] Which Rights how welcome they were to them when now regained in Queen Mary's days, we may guests from their former complaint in the beginning of King Edward's days; where we see how much they grieved, when they saw them lost. Sanders 2. l. p. 244. adds also, that at this time Singuli Episcopi (uno tantum Landaffensi excepto) peculiariter petierunt à sede Apostolicâ veniam prioris gravissimae culpae, See before §. 47. & confirmationem in suo cujusque Episcopatu. Lastly in the same Statute it is concluded: That the Ecclesiastical Jurisdictions of the Arch-Bishops, Bishops and Ordinaries, should be in the same State, for process of Suits, punishments of Errors, and execution of Censures of the Church, with knowledge of Causes belonging to the same, and as large in these Points as the said Jurisdiction was in the Twentieth Year of Henry the Eighth. §. 51 After these Statutes, see to the same purpose the Synod held presently after the Coronation of Queen Mary, A●d the Church Doctrine under King Edward condemned. before the introduction of any new Bishops, save only some of those that were ejected in King Edward's Reign. In which Synod the Bishop of London presided, the Archbishop of Canterbury having been, about a Month before, by the Council, committed to the Tower for Treason; for which he was, some Two Months after, condemned, but afterward pardoned by the Queen. In this Synod Fox saith (p. 1282.) that the whole House of Convocation, Fox p. 1698. except Six persons, did immediately assent, and subscribe to the natural presence of Christ in the Sacrament of the Altar; and Transubstantiation: and to the renouncing, of the Catechism put forth in the latter time of King Edward, in the name of the Clergy, and of the new Book of Common-Prayer; these things being proposed to them by the Prolocutor. At which time (saith he) Mr. Philpot Archdeacon of Winchester was as it were astonished at the multitude of so many Learned Men as there were on purpose gathered together to maintain old Traditions, rather than the Truth of God's Holy Word. After this Synod see in Fox p. 1294. §. 52. n▪ 1. the Eighteen Articles sent by the Queen to the Bishops (but these Articles such as only enjoined them the observance of former Church Constitutions, from which the late Innovations had disobediently deviated) commanding them, to see to the Observance, in their Dioceses, of the Church Canons used in the time of Henry the Eighth; securing them herein from the incurring any danger from the Laws of the Realm; see the 1. Act. The Second of which Articles requires them to omit in their Writs: Regiâ authoritate fulcitus. The Third, not to require the Oath of the Queen's Supremacy, in their admission of any into Church Preferments. The Fourth excludes Sacramentaries from all Ecclesiastical Functions; the Synod, held in October before, having declared against them. The Seventh excludes, according to the former Church Canons, all married Persons from Ecclesiastical Promotions. The Ninth appointeth the Divorce of married Monks and other Religious Persons, who had formerly taken the perpetual Vow of Continency; and the rest are to renew some or other former order of the Church. Lastly see the Retractation made by the Clergy in Queen Mary's days, confessed by Mason de Minist. §. 52. n. 2. 3. l. 4. c. Regnante Mariâ alia Episcopis mens, alius animus fuit [i, e. concerning Supremacy:] To which all that he answers is this, Eorum subsecuta inconstantia confessionis [prioris] soliditatem abolere non potuit. Quamvis sententias revocarunt, suis tamen ipsorum argumentis non satisfecerunt. But, however that he will not grant the King's Supremacy (I mean in such a sense as it was then maintained) to have been confuted by the Bishops reasoning; yet he grants it to have been revoked (so much as in them lay) by their Authority. §. 53 The only thing which can here be questioned, is; whether this Clergy in Queen Mary's days, That Queen Mary's, Clergy was a lawful Clergy. who in their following Synods abrogated the Acts and Concessions of the Clergies former Synods in Henry the Eighth, and Edward the Sixth's days, were a lawful Clergy? Which if they be now; note, that they will also be so in the beginning of Queen Elizabeth's days; when also they opposed her Reformation. Now it is questioned whether they were a lawful Clergy: α α because many of King Edward's Bishops were, in the beginning of this Queen's Reign, ejected; β β and some also burnt for Heretics, and others put into their places; γ γ whilst some of them were living, and so those Sees not vacant: δ and δ that without the consent of the Metropolitan, who for the three first Years of Queen Mary was Cranmer; without which Metropolitan's consent the Ordination of any Bishop in his Province was unlawful. See Can. Nicen. 4. Can. Apostol. 35. Now these Bishops are numbered by Fox to have been then ejected: Pag. 1289. Cranmer from Canterbury; Holgate from York; Ridley from London; Poynet from Winchester; Hooper from Worcester; [he might have said from Gloucester too, for Hooper, in the latter end of Edward the Sixth's time, held both these Sees together in Commendam: and for Worcester, See Godw. Annal. An. Dom. 1555. Latimer (then living) had been Bishop thereof in King Henry 's days; out of which, for Nonconformity to the Six Articles, he was ejected, or for fear resigned it, and was imprisoned in the Tower till King Edward 's time; yet (for what reason I know not) could never then be restored to his Bishopric;] Barlow from bath; Harley from Hereford; Taylor from Lincoln, [but this was by death; not by the Queen, as appears in Fox p. 1282.] Ferrars from St. David's; Coverdale from Excester; Scory from Chichester; Besides these I find two more mentioned by Mason de Minist. p. 248. Bush from Bristol; and Bird from Chester. Of which Bishops (Mr. Fox saith, p. 1280) Five were put out; that the former Possessors of those Bishoprics might be restored, Bonner to London, Gardiner to Winchester, Day to Chichester, Heath to Worcester [but Heath was afterward translated to York in Holgates room, and Pate to Worcester in Hoopers' room,] Vesy to Excester; Besides which Tonstal was restored to Durham; a Bishopric which, after Tonstal's Imprisonment, was first, kept void in King Edward's days; and at last, by Act of Parliament, dissolved to increase the King's Revenue. §. 54 Now in Vindication of the just Authority of Queen Mary's Clergy, Reply to α notwithstanding what hath been objected, you must First 1. take notice, That the Ejection of Bishops in Queen Mary's days was not the First, but Second Ejection; the first being made in King Edward's time, when Gardiner, Bonner, Tonstal, Day, Heath, Vesy, That the Bishops in K Edward's days were not lawfully ejected. and probably some other Bishops were removed from their Sees: for I find not the Ecclesiastical History of those times accurately written by any; nor Mr. Fox to use the same diligence in numbering the Change of Clergy under King Edward, as he doth that under Queen Mary; yet something may be conjectured from those general words of his, p. 1180, For the most part the Bishops were changed, and the dumb Prelate compelled to give place to others that would Preach. Secondly, That, if the Ejection of Bishops in King Edward's time was not lawful, so many of the Bishops, as were then ejected, were, by Queen Marry, justly restored; and those, who were introduced into their places, justly excluded. Thirdly, That to prove the Ejection of those Bishops under King Edward lawful; it must be done, both by a lawful Authority; and for a lawful Cause. Fourthly, But that, in both these respects, their Ejection, if the Principles formerly laid in this Discourse stand good, appears not just. §. 55 For 1. First, these Bishops being questioned about matters Ecclesiastical and Spiritual, 1. Neither for the Judge. their Judges were the King's Privy Council, or his Commissioners, part Clergy, part Laity, as the King pleased to nominate them (contrary to Third Thesis.) Amongst whom though the Archbishop of Canterbury was one: yet he was so, not for his Canonical Superiority in the Church; but from the Authority he,- jointly with the rest, received from the King, when the former Statutes, concerning the Trial of Heretics by the Clergy, See Fox. p. 1237, and p 1202. had been first abrogated, (See before §. 39:) whereas the Clergy only are the lawful Judges of these matters; namely, to declare what is done contrary to the Laws of God, and of the Church; and to depose from the exercise of their Office the persons found faulty therein. See Thesis' Third. §. 56 Secondly, The Causes Ecclesiastical urged against them, for which they were removed from their Bishoprics, were these; 2. Nor for the Cause. their non-acknowledgment of such a large extended Power of the King's Supremacy, as he then claimed and exercised in Ecclesiastical matters; their nonconformity to the King's Injunctions (confirmed, if you will, with the consent of the National Synod of the Clergy) in Spiritual matters. And amongst these especially; their not relinquishing the usage of the former Church Liturgies, and Forms of Divine Service, and particularly the Canon of the Mass; which had been a Service approved by the general Practice of the Church Catholic for near a 1000 Years; in which were now said to be many Errors, See Church G●v. 4. 〈◊〉. §. 39 for which it might not be lawfully used: their not using, and conforming to, the new Form of Common-Prayer, and Administration of the Sacraments, the new Form of Consecration and Ordination of Priests; and many other clear Innovations against the former, not only Ecclesiastical Constitutions, or External Rites and Ceremonies (which it was affirmed, in one of the Questions disputed on in the first Year of Queen Elizabeth, that every particular Church hath Authority to take away and change) but also Ecclesiastical Doctrines established by Synods superior to that of this Nation; as hath been showed in the Fourth Part of Church Govern. A Catalogue of which Doctrines and Canons I have set down before §. 45, having taken them out of the Three Copies of Articles proposed to the then Bishop of Winchester, See Fox p. 1234, 1235. to be subscribed. Now such Canons, whether concerning matters of Doctrine, or of Ecclesiastical Constitution, cannot be lawfully abrogated; neither by the King (See Thesis 1, 2.7, 8;) nor by the National Synods of this Church, (See Thesis 4.8:) and therefore the Ejection of those Bishops in Edward the Sixth's days, for not obeying the King, (I add, or the National Synod, had there been any such before their Ejection,) in breaking such Canons was unjust; and therefore they justly by Queen Mary restored, and the others that were found in their places, justly dispossessed. Fifthly, As for the rest of King Edward's Bishops; who, besides those Bishops that possessed these non-vacant Sees, were ejected in Queen Mary's days: §. 57 5. That the Bishops deprived in Qu. Mary's days were lawfully ejected their Ejection (contrary to the other) will be justifiable; if done for a lawful Cause, and by a lawful Judge, 1. First then; the Causes of their Ejection were these chief. §. 58 First, For their being Married (which many, if not all, the Ejected were, Cranmer, 1. B●th as to the Cause. Holgate the Archbishop of York, Coverdale, Scory, Barlow, Hooper, Farrar, Harley, Bird, Bush; and some of them, after having taken Monastic Vows, as Holgate, Coverdale, Barlow, as appears in Fox and Godwin) contrary to the Canons of the Church both Western, and Eastern (as to those that marry after having received Holy Orders) both Modern and Ancient, even before the Council of Nice; as is showed at large in the Discourse of Celibacy, §. 18: and contrary to the Provincial Canons of the Church of England. (See Fox p. 1051, and 177, granting Celibacy of the Clergy to have been established here for a Law by a National Synod in the time of Anselme Archbishop of Canterbury, about An. Dom. 1080:) The Penalty of transgressing which Canons was Deposition from their Office. See Conc. Constant. in Trullo (less strict in this matter than the Western Church) Can. 6, Si quis post sui ordinationem conjugium contrahere ausus fuerit, deponatur. See the same in Concil. Neocaesar. before that of Nice, Can. 1. Conc Elibert. 33. c. African. Can. 37. And see the same in the Canon of Anselme, that all Priests that keep Women shall be deprived of their Churches and all Ecclesiastical Benefices. §. 59 Secondly, For their not acknowledging any Supremacy at all of the Roman Patriarch, 2, more than of any other Foreign Bishop, over the Clergy of England; contrary to the former Canons of many lawful Superior Councils, as is showed in Church Gou. 1. Part. §. 53. &c. and also contrary to the former Provincial ones of the English Church. And for their placing such an Ecclesiastical Supremacy in the Prince, as to use all Jurisdiction, to reform Heresy, constitute or reverse Ecclesiastical Laws, in the manner before expressed. Which Supremacy in the Church, since some body in each Prince's Dominion, where Christians are, ever had here on Earth under Christ; I say, ever; not only after that Princes became Christian, but before: Archbishop Cranmer, rather than that he would acknowledge it at any time to have lain in the Church, said that, before the first Christian Emperor's time, it resided in the Heathen Princes; and namely in Nero for one; affirming also the Grand Signior now to be the Head of the Church in Turkey; as you may see, in the Conference between Dr. Martin and him at his Trial, in Fox p. 1704. Which Relation if any think false, let them say, what other answer, upon the former Suppositions there, can rationally be returned. §. 60 3. For their refusing to officiate or celebrate Divine Service, 3. and administer the Sacraments, according to the former established Church Liturgies received and used by the whole Catholic Church for near a 1000 Years; or so much as to be present at it: which Divine Service they accused, not only of many superstitious Ceremonies; but of many Errors also, and of flat Idolatry, in the Adoration of Bread in the Eucharist. See Fox his Preface to the Reign of Queen Mary p 1270; and Bishop Ridley's Conferences with Latimer. Fox p. 1560, and 1562, 1563. §. 61 For their maintaining several Tenants, 4. especially about the Holy Eucharist, such as had been formerly declared Heresies by the Definitions of lawful Superior Councils. As 1. First the denying of any corporal Presence of Christ, either with the consecrated Elements; or with the worthy Receiver; whether by way of Transubstantiation, or Consubstantiation: urging, that because this Body was in Heaven, ergo, it could not be in the Sacrament; and affirming only a Real Presence (I give you the very words of Bishop Ridley) if taken generally, and so as it may singnify any manner of thing which belongeth to the Body of Christ. Hence Bishop Ridley's expressing of the manner of Christ's Presence in the Eucharist are such as these: That the Consecrated Bread is the Body of Christ, in remembrance of him and of his death. That, besides a signification of Christ's Body set forth by the Sacrament; the Grace also of Christ's Body, i, e. the Food of Life and Immortality, is given to the faithful. That we receive the virtue of the very Flesh of Christ; the Life and Grace of his Body: The Grace and the Virtue of his very Nature. Spiritual Flesh; but not that which was Crucified. That Christ's Body is in the Sacrament; because there is in it the Spirit of Christ, i, e. the Power of the word of God, which seedeth and cleanseth the Soul. That the Natural Body and Blood, even that which was born of the Virgin Mary &c, is in the Sacrament, ver● & realiter; and that the difference from the Roman Church is only in modo, in the way and manner of Being: [how is that?] for we (saith he) confess it to be there Spiritually by Grace and Efficacy; because that whosoever receiveth worthily that Bread and Wine, receiveth effectuously Christ's Body and Blood; i, e. he is made effectually Partaker of his Passion. But otherwise▪ Christ's Body is in the Sacrament really, no more, than the Holy Ghost is in the Element of Water in Baptism; (therefore the Question proposed thus. An Corpus Christi realiter adsit in Encharistiâ? In King Edward's time was held Negatively. See Disput. Oxon. 1549, and King Edw. 28. Article.) Thus Ridley, who spoke most clearly; Fox. p. 1703 and whose Scholar in this Opinion Cranmer was, he being formerly a Lutheran, and holding a Corporal Presence. See these words of Ridley, Fox p. 1598. in his last Examination, and p. 1311, 1312. in his stating of the first Question disputed on at Oxford: which was not about Transubstantiation, but about the Corporal Presence of Christ, or the Real Presence of Christ's Body in the Eucharist; which those Bishops denied, as well as Transubstantiation. The very same with whose Doctrine, was that of Peter Martyr published in King Edward's days, Disput. Oxon. 1●49. Fol. 88 Illud idem corpus nos habere in coenâ Domini, quod Christus obtulit in Cruse, quoad substantiam & veritatem naturae fateor, sed non eodem modo: quia spiritualiter, i, e. per fidem ipsi percipimus; id vero substantiali & corporali praesentiâ pependit in cruse. Cum Chrysostomo id ipsum nos [in Eucharistiâ] habere corpus quod in Cruse fuit oblatum fatemur: Sed non est modus recipiendi per praesentiam corpralem; sed per praesentiam fidei, quae potest res absentes spiritualiter praesentes facere. Secondly, The denying, that the Eucharist might be offered as a Sacrifice propitiatory; and asserting that there was in the Eucharist no other Oblation of Christ's Body, than the Oblation of our Thanksgiving for Christ's Body offered on the Cross. To use Peter Martyrs words, Substantia hostiae nostrae est gratiarum actio de Corpore Christi tradito in Crucem; Disput. Oxon. 1549. & hac gratiarum actione, fide atque confessione dixerunt Patres in Caenâ offerri corpus Christi. Which matters are contrary to the Doctrines, and Definitions of former lawful Superior Councils; if those Positions stand good, which have been said at large in the Discourse of the Eucharist. §. 251. and (Conc. Sacrif.) §. _____ &c. and which have been laid down concerning Councils, in Ch. Gou. 4. Part: which former Positions it must not be expected that I prove again, wherever I make use of them. §. 62 To justify which Tenants not to be Heresies, those Bishops were fain to appeal from Councils to Scripture, and (not to deny such Councils to be General or Superior; but) to deny the Authority of General or Superior Councils to be obliging, when contrary to the Holy Scriptures; i, e. to that sense wherein themselves, contrary to the Exposition of the Church, interpreted the Holy Scriptures: as was soberly urged to Bishop Ridley at his Trial by the Bishop of Gloucester. Fox p. 1602. You (saith he) refusing the Determination of the Catholic Church, bring Scripture for the Probation of your Assertions; and we also bring Scriptures. You understand them in one sense; we in another. How will you know the truth herein? If you stand to your own Interpretation, you are wise in your own conceit; and Vae qui sapientes etc. Isa. 5.21. But if you say, you will follow the minds of the Doctors and Ancient Fathers: semblably you understand them in one meaning, and we take them in another. How will you know the truth herein? If you stand to your own judgement; then are you singular in your own conceit, and cannot avoid the Vae. It remaineth therefore, that you submit yourself to the determination and arbitrement of the Church; with whom God promised to remain to the world's end. Thus the other side argued with them. But meanwhile what aversion they had of submitting to the judgement of the Church, or Councils, see in the forecited Conference of Bishop Ridley with Latimer. Where, having objected the Authority of General Councils for the Mass, he answereth thus, That, whensoever they, who rule and govern the Church, are the lively Members of Christ, and walk after the guiding and rule of his Word; Councils gathered together of such Guides do indeed represent the Universal Church; and have a promise of the guiding of his Spirit into all truth: But that any such Council hath at any time allowed the Mass &c, I affirm (saith he) to be impossible; for Superstition [i, e. the Masy] and the sincere Religion of Christ, can never agree together. For Determination of all Controversies in Christ's Religion, Christ hath left unto the Church not only Moses and the Prophets, to ask counsel at; but also the Gospels. Christ would have the Church his Spouse in all doubts to ask counsel at the word of his Father written. Neither do we read, that Christ in any place hath laid so great a Burden upon the Members of his Spouse; that he hath commanded them to go to the Universal Church. It is true, that Christ gave unto his Church some Apostles, some Prophets etc. But that all men should meet together, out of all parts of the world, to define of the Articles of our Faith; I neither find it commanded of Christ, nor written in the Word of God. To which Bishop Latimer nexeth these words, In things pertaining to God and Faith, we must stand only to the Scriptures; which are able to make us all perfect and instructed to Salvation, if they be well understood. And they offer themselves to be well understood, only to those who have good wills, and give themselves to study and Prayer: neither are there any men less apt to understand them, than the prudent and wise men of the world. Thus Latimer in application of his Discourse to General Councils. See likewise Bishop Ridley's Disputation at Oxford; where being pressed with the Authority of the great Lateran Council; Fox ●. 1321. after having replied, that there were Abbots, Priors and Friars in it to the Number of 800; he saith that he denyeth the Authority of this Council, not so much for that cause, as for this especially; because the Doctrine of that Council agreed not with the word of God [i, e. as he understood this word.] Thus he (who was counted the most Learned of those Bishops) concerning the Authority of Councils. See like matter in the Discourse between Lord Rich and Mr. Philpot, Fox p. 1641. §. 63 To proceed. These Canons and Definitions, I say not, of Popes and Pontificians, as they were ordinarily then nicknamed, but of supposed former lawful Superior Councils, were then in just force in Queen Mary's days; notwithstanding any abrogation of them made by a National (i e. an Inferior) Synod; See Thesis the Fourth, and the Eighth; as also was frequently urged against those questioned Bishops. See the Examination of Arch Bishop Cranmer, Fox p. 1702. where Dr. Story the Queen's Commissioner thus objecteth; but receives no answer there to it; The Canons, which be received of all Christendom, compel you to answer. For although this Realm of late time, thro' such Schismatics, as you, have exiled and banished the Canons; yet that cannot make for you; for you know: that, par in parem, nec pars in totum aliquid statuere potest. Wherefore this Isle, being indeed but a Member of tire whole, could not determine against the whole. Thus Dr. Story. Yet neither, in Queen Mary's time, could the Authority of a National Synod, or an Act of Parliament be pleaded, for such an abrogation of the old Canons or Liturgies or Supremacies, and the establishment of new: because both the Synod and Parliament of this Nation, in the beginning of her Reign, had pulled down again, what those under King Edward and Henry had builded; so that those Bishops could not hereupon ground their nonconformity: which Argument Dr. Story there also prosecuteth against the Archbishop. §. 64 Such as these then being the Causes of the Ejection of those Bishops, I think it is evidenced; And 2●●, 〈◊〉 to the J●●● that they were Regularly and Canonically ejected, as to the Cause. And 2. Next: so were they, as to the Judge, They being condemned, as guilty of Heresy, 2. or other Irregularities (which are mulcted with Deposition) and so ejected, or also degraded, and excommunicated with the greater Excommunication (further than which the Ecclesiastical Power did not proceed) not by any Secular Court, or by the Queen's Commissioners; but by those whom the Church hath appointed, in the Intervals of Councils, the ordinary Judges of Heresy, or other Breaches of her Canons: Amongst whom the highest Judges are the Patriarches; and, above them, the first Patriarch of Rome. By whose Delegates the more Eminent Persons, that were accused of Heresy, the Archbishop and the Bishops were here tried (according to the Authority shown, to be due to, and to be anciently used by, him, in Chur. Gou. 1. Part. §. 9.20. &c, and 2. Part §. 77;) and other Inferior Persons were tried by the Bishop, who was their Ordinary: Queen Mary having revived the Statutes repealed by King Henry and Edward concerning the Trial of Heretics by the Church's Authority; as hath been noted before §. 49. The issue of which Trial by the Church, if they found guilty, was either Deposition only from their Benefice and Office, for Breach of her Canons; or also Excommunication excommnnicatione majori, and Degradation, for Heresy and Opposition of her Definitions high matters of Faith; and so the yielding them up, as now by degradation rendered Secular Persons, to have inflicted on them by the Secular Power the punishments appointed for such crimes by the Secular Laws; as you may see, in the Forms of the Condemnation of Cranmer, Ridley, &c Fox p. 1603, and elsewhere; and in the Profession of the Bishop of Lincoln to Bishop Ridley, Fox p. 1597. All (saith he) that we may do, is to cut you off from the Church; for we cannot condemn you to die (as most untruly hath been reported of us) etc. §. 65 As for the burning of such afterward, whom the Church first condemns of Heresy, To β. it is to be considered; Where Concern▪ the bu●●ing of those, wh●, in Q. Mary, days, were by the C●u condemned of Heresy. That the Secular Laws, not Ecclesiastical, appoint it; and the Secular Magistrates, not Ecclesiastical, execute it: Again; That Protestant Princes, as well as Catholic; King Edward, King James, Queen Elizabeth, as well as Queen Mary, have thought fit to execute this Law upon Heretics. So in Edward the Sixth's days, Joan of Kent, Anne Askews Maid (who was burnt in Henry the Eighth's days, for denying the Real Presence) and George Paris were burnt for Heretics. Fox p. 1180: And some other Anabaptists condemned and recanting were enjoined to bear their Faggots. See Stow p. 596. And, in Henry the Eighth's time, Archbishop Cranmer, in the King's presence, disputed against Jo. Lambert for denying the Real Presence; and the Lord Cromwell pronounced Sentence upon him to be burnt for it. Fox p. 1024, 1026. And the same Archbishop, being as yet only a Lutheran, saith Fox p. 1115, prosecuted others upon the same grounds; and also in the beginning of King Edward's Reign, before that the Protector and his Party appeared much for Zuinglianisme, committed to the Counter Thomas Dobb, a Master of Art, upon the same Account; who also died in Prison. Fox p. 1180. In Queen Elizabeth's days one Jo. jews and Matthew Hammond were burnt for Heretics; after they were first condemned by the Bishop, and so delivered over to the Secular Power; as those were in Queen Mary's Reign. So also was Hacket executed then partly for Heresy and Blasphemy; See holin. Qu. Eliz. A. Reg. 21. & 25. and Two Brownists, Coppin and Thocker, hanged at St. Edmunds-bury, An. Dom. 1583 for Publishing Brown's Book written against the Common-Prayer-Book: Likewise several others in her time condemned and recanting bore their Faggots. See Stow p. 679, 680. Stow p. 1174 Cambden 's Hist. Eliz. p. 257. In King James' time Bartholomew Legat was burnt for an Heretic. And in his time An. 3. Jac. 4. c. a Law was Enacted concerning Hanging, Drawing, and Quartering any who should turn Papist and be reconciled to the Pope and See of Rome, though a mere Laic, though one taking the Oath of Allegiance (as several reconciled do:) The Words are If any shall be willingly reconciled to the Pope or See of Rome, or shall promise Obedience to any such pretended Authority; that every such Person or Persons shall be to all intents adjudged Traitors. Is not this putting to death for pretended Heresy? And to a Death worse than Burning? So in Protestant States abroad, Servetus by that of Geneva, Valentinus Gentilis by that of Berne, were burnt for Heretics, Calvin approving. §. 66 This to show the Protestant's judgement, concerning the justness and equity of the Law of burning Heretics. But whether this Law in itself be just: and again if just, whether it may justly be extended to all those simple People put to death in Queen Mary's days (such as St. Austin calls Haereticis credentes) because they had so much Obstinacy, as not to recant those Errors, for which they saw their former Teacher's Sacrifice their Life; especially when they were prejudiced by the most common contrary Doctrine and Practice in the precedent times of Edward the Sixth; and had lived in such a condition of life, as neither had means, nor leisure, nor capacity, to examine the Church's Authority, Councils, or Fathers; ordinarily such persons being only to be reduced (as they were perverted) by the contrary fashion and course of the times, and by Example; not by Argument, either from reason, or from authority (and the same, as I say of these Laity, may perhaps also be said of some illiterate Clergy:) whether I say this Law may justly be extended to such, and the highest suffering, death be inflicted (especially where the Delinquents so numerous) rather than some lower Censures of Pecuniary Mulcts or Imprisonment; these things I meddle not with, nor would be thought at all in this place to justify. Tho some amongst those unlearned Lay-people I confess to have been extremely Arrogant and obstinate, and zealous beyond knowledge; and, though they had suffered for a good Cause, yet suffering for it on no good or reasonable ground: as neither themselves being any way Learned, nor pretending the Authority of any Church; nor relying on any present Teachers, but on the certainty of their own private judgement interpreting Scripture; as you may see, if you have a mind, in the Disputations of Anne Askew (Fox p. 1125.) Woodman the Iron-maker, (Fox p. 1800.) Fortune the Smith, (Fox p. 1741.) Allen the Miller, (Fox p. 1796.) and other Mechanics, with Bishops, and other Learned Men, concerning the lawfulness of the Mass, the Authority of the Church, the Number of the Sacraments, the manner or possibility of Christ's Presence in the Eucharist, &c: themselves afterward penning or causing to be penned (you may judge with what Integrity,) the Relations, which we have of the said Disputations. See more concerning the erroneous zeal of such like Persons in Fox Monuments later Edition Vol. 3. Fol. 242. 286. 396. 886. §. 67 This concerning the lawful Ejection of those Protestant Bishops in the beginning of Queen Mary's Reign; And therefore others lawfully introduced in their places To. γ. 1. which if lawful, so also will be, the introduction of those who were chosen in their rooms: though this Introduction was, * 1. whilst they Living; or * 2. without their, or the Metropolitan's, Consent. 1. Tho whilst they Living; if such Election of them be, after that the other are justly ejected: Of this none can doubt. Now most of the Protestant Bishops were ejected, at the very beginning of Queen Mary's days, for being married; though some of them not so speedily sentenced for Heresy. But suppose the Introduction of the other was whilst they living, and before their lawful Ejection: yet these Bishops that are so (unjustly, I grant,) introduced, if, after that the others are ejected, than their Superiors, having the power to elect into such place, do acknowledge and approve them, from thence forward begin to be legitimate; and enjoy a good Title. §. 68 2. To δ. 2. Tho without their, or the Metropolitan's, Consent. For if the Archbishop, without whose consent the Canon permitteth not any Bishop to be consecrated in his Province, be, upon just cause, and especially upon suspicion of Heresy, in any restraint; so as he cannot safely be suffered, either in respect of the Church, or State, any longer to execute his office, till cleared of such guilt: here his Office is rightly administered, as in Sede vacant, by some other; whether it be, by some Bishop of the Province, his Ordinary Vicegerent or Substitute in such Cases; or by the Delegates of that Authority, which in the Church is Superior to the Arch-Bishops; or by the consent of the major part of the Bishops of such Province. And so Archbishop Cranmer being, at Queen Mary's first Entrance, accused, 1. of being Married (an Irregularity incurring Deposition; and also confessed;) and 2. of Treason; and 3. of Heresy; and for the Second of these being by the Queen's Council immediately imprisoned; and shortly after condemned to die, before the Consecration of any new Bishop: his Office was now lawfully supplied by another (either by Cardinal Pool the Pope's Legate; or by the Bishop the next dignified Person after the Archbishop in the Province; or by whomsoever the Queen should depute:) as for any exceptions, that the Archbishop could make against it; since he acknowledged her for the Supreme Head of the English Church. Or if, notwithstanding such his restraint or condemnation, according to the Canon, no new Bishop could be made without the Archbishop's consent: yet could Archbishop Cranmer justly claim no such Authority from the Canon as indeed he never did.) 1. Because he held the abrogation of such Canons to be in the Power of the Prince, as the Supreme Head of this Church; at least when assisted with the Parliament, and major part of the Clergy: And so then was this (arguing ad homines) abrogated by Queen Mary appointing, allowing, these new Elections. 2. Because he had consented to the Statutes made formerly. 25. Hen. 8.20. c. and 1 Edw. 6.2; where the Archbishop is necessitated to consecrate such person, as the King, from whom all Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction is derived, shall present: or, he refusing, the King may appoint any other two Bishops for him, to do it in his stead; ergo, so might Queen Mary, according to these Statutes. §. 69 Thus much, That Queen Mary's Clergy were a lawful Clergy; (which indeed, except for a few, and those not yet chosen or acting in the beginning of her Reign, cannot be called in question;) and That their reversing the former Constitutions of Henry the Eighth, or Edward the Sixth's Clergy, as to the Authority that did it, was a lawful Synodical Act. But in the next place, suppose that the Queen had acted singly without or against her Clergy (but with the Approbation of those Governors in the Church Catholic as are the lawful Superiors to this Clergy) in re-establishing the former Profession of Religion used in Henry the Eighth's time, before the Reformation; yet, so far as this Profession is evident to have been according to the Constitutions of the Church, and of former Synods Superior to the Synods of this Nation, (which Constitutions do therefore stand still in their just force;) this Act of hers would still be justifiable: because Sovereigns have such a Supremacy acknowledged by all due unto them, as to use a Coactive Power in causing the Execution, within their Dominions, of such Church Canons, as are granted to be in force; without any inferior further Licence or consent thereto. Nor is this doing any more, than if the King of England, now reestablished in his Throne, should, without, or against the Vote of the present Ministry he●e, restore the Bishops, and the Ecclesiastical Laws again to their former office and vigour; which these men never had any just or superior Authority to displace, or abrogate. CHAP. VI The former Supremacy re-assumed by Qu. Elizabeth. §. 70 IN the last place we come to the times of Queen Elizabeth; where we find, by the Authority of the Queen and her Parliament, 3. What Supremacy claimed &c in the times of Q. Eliz. all the repeals of the Statutes of Henry the Eighth, and Edward the Sixth, in order to the Regal Supremacy and Reformation, which Repeals were made in Queen Mary's days, now again repealed [except in Two, 26. Hen. 8.1. c. and 35. Hen. 8.3. c. which give to Henry the Eighth the Title of Head of the Church of England; which was changed by the Queen into that of Governor, as better befitting a Woman. As for Bishop Bramha's Observation of Two other Statutes of Henry the Eighth, unrestored by Queen Eliz. 28. Hen. 8.10. c. An Act (saith he) of extinguishing the Authority of the Bishop of Rome out of this Realm: and 35. Hen. 8.5. c. An Act made for Corroboration of the former; if you please to view them, and compare with them 1 Eliz. 1. c. you will find the cause to be, not the Queens preserving and retaining here any Authority of the Pope, which Henry renounced; but the Six Articles in the one, and the old Forms of Oaths in the other, thought fit by her to be laid aside.] and all the Power and Privileges whatsoever of Supremacy in Ecclesiasticals, that were conceded to Henry the Eighth, or Edward the Sixth, That as ample a Supreacy was claimed, & by Parliament conferred, o● her, as on K. Hen. or Ed. as fully transferred to Queen Elizabeth. For which see the Act 1. Eliz. 1. c. (see the same 8. Eliz. 1. c.) running thus; That all Jurisdictions, Privileges, Superiorities Spiritual and Ecclesiastical, as by any Spiritual or Ecclesiastical Power hath heretofore been exercised, for the Visitation of Ecclesiastical State and Persons, and for Reformation, Orders, and Correction of the same, and of all manner of Errors, Heresies, Schisms, &c, shall for ever, by Authority of this Parliament, be united and annexed to the Imperial Crown of this Realm. And that your Highness, your Heirs &c, shall have full Power and Authority, by virtue of this Act, to name and authorise such persons, as your Majesty shall think meet [without any being obliged as Henry the Eighth was, that half the number should be of the Clergy] to exercise and execute under your Highness all manner of Jurisdictions, Privileges and to visit, reform, and amend all such Errors, Heresies, Schisms &c, which by any manner Spiritual or Ecclesiastical Power may lawfully be reform; and that such persons shall have full power by virtue of this Act to execute all the Premises; any matter or cause to the contrary in any wise notwithstanding. Provided always that no manner of Order, Act, or Determination, for any matter of Religion or cause Ecclesiastical, made by the Authority of this present Parliament shall be adjudged [i. e, by those persons] at any time to be any Error, Heresy, Schism &c, any Decree, Constitution or Law, whatsoever the same be, to the contrary notwithstanding [this Proviso perhaps was put in, because all the Bishops that were in the Parliament opposed this Statute. See Cambden 1. Eliz. Provided [again] that such persons authorized to reform &c, shall not in any wise have Authority to determine or adjudge any matter or cause to be Heresy, [I suppose by Heresy is meant here any Error contrary to what ought to be believed and practised in Divine matters] but only, Such as heretofore have been determined to be Heresy by the Authority of the Canonical Scriptures; or by the first Four General Councils; or by any other General Councils, wherein the same is declared Heresy by the express and plain words of the said Canonical Scriptures; or Such, as hereafter shall be judged and determined to be Heresy by the High Court of Parliament of this Realm, with the assent of the Clergy in their Convocation [here therefore nothing, whether by the Clergy or other, could be de novo declared or adjudged Heresy; unless the High Court of Parliament also adjudged it to be so] §. 71 In the same Statute concerning the Extent of the Queen's Supremacy, it is expressly ordained That the Branches, Sentences, and words of the said several Acts [i. c. made in Henry the Eighth's time touching Supremacy] and every one of them, shall be deemed and taken to extend to your Highness, as fully and largely, as ever the same Acts did extend to the said late King Henry the Eighth, your Highness' Father. The same thing also appears in the Queen's Admonition, annexed to her Injunctions, to prevent any sinister Interpretations of the Oath of Supremacy then imposed: which saith: That the Queen's Majesty, informed that some of her Subjects found some scruple in the Form of this Oath &c, would that all her loving Subjects should understand; that nothing was, is, or shall be meant or intended by the same Oath, to have any other Duty or Allegiance required by that Oath, than was acknowledged to be due to King Henry the Eighth, her Majesty's Father, or King Edward the Sixth her Majesty's Brother. [It proceeds, showing those scruples that were made by some against the Oath.] And further her Majesty forbiddeth her Subjects to give credit to such persons, See Can●od. H●st. El●z. p. 20. who notify to her Subjects, how by the words of the said Oath it may be collected, that the Kings or Queens of this Realm may challenge authority of Ministry of Divine Offices in the Church; Wherein her Subjects be much abused. For her Majesty neither doth nor ever will challenge any other Authority, than that was challenged, and lately used by King Henry, and King Edward; which is and was of ancient time due to the Imperial Grown of this Realm; that is, under God to have the Sovereignty and Rule over all manner of persons born within these her Realms, whether Ecclesiastical or Temporal, so as no other Sovereign Power shall or aught to have any Superiority over them [but this Sovereignty and Rule, I suppose, must be understood to extend to all the Particulars, which Queen Elizabeth 's Statute but now recited alloweth to belong to it, and wherein Henry the Eighth, and Edward the Sixth used or were allowed it.] And if any Person, who hath conceived any other sense of the Form of the said Oath, [i. e. that in it the Queen challenged Authority of Ministry of Divine Offices in the Church] shall accept the same Oath with this interpretation, sense or meaning [i. e. that she had such Sovereignty as was challenged and lately used by her Father and Brother:] Her Majesty is well pleased to accept every such Person in that behalf as her Obedient Subject. Thus the Admonition; and the same is said in the Statute 5. Eliz. 1. c, referring to the Admonition, That none other Authority was by that Oath acknowledged in her Majesty, than that which was challenged and used by those Two Kings. See likewise 1 Eliz. 1. c, the Repeal of the former way of the Trial of Heretics, that was revived according to the former Statutes by Queen Mary, leaving the Supremacy in Spirituals to Churchmen. §. 72 Neither do the several things, Where Concerning certain q●alifications of her Supremacy urged by the Reformed. that are noted by Dr. Fern (in his Examen. of Champny 9 c. §. 16.20.) and others, as qualifications and bounds of the Supremacy of Queen Elizabeth, seem to come home to their purpose so far, as to render it justifiable. There are urged by them; 1. The Style she used, in calling herself not Supreme Head, but only Supreme Governor. 2. The Words in the Admonition, viz. Her Majesty doth not challenge any other Authority, than under God to have the Sovereignty and Rule over all manner of Persons &c: as the words are recited but now. 3. The words of the 37. Article of the Church of England relating to these of the Admonition; We give not to our Princes the ministering either of God's Word or of the Sacraments; the which thing the Injunctions lately set forth by Elizabeth our Queen do most plainly testify; but that only Prerogative which we see to have been given always to all Godly Princes in Holy Scriptures by God himself: that is, that they should rule all Estates and Degrees committed to their charge by God, whether they be Ecclesiastical or Temporal; and restrain with the Civil Sword the stubborn and evil Doers. 4. The Qualification of the Authority of the Queen's Commissioners to judge or determine Heresies, Provided always▪ that such persons authorized etc. See the Words quoted before §. 70. §. 73 But to these it is rationally replied; And the Replies to them. Reply to the First. To the First, That, if the same, and as much power be still signified by the Queen's Title now, as was before by the other; which hath been showed but now in the Statute, in the Admonition &c: what matters the varying of words, that altars nothing in the sense? Neither is the Title of Head of the Church, so it be understood subordinate to Christ, incompetent to some person or other, here on earth. §. 74 To the Second, To the 2d That the words quoted out of the Admonition may indeed be taken in such a general sense, that all sides will willingly subscribe to. For the Queen hath a Sovereignty and Rule over all manner persons born within her Realms so [i. e. in such manner] as no other Foreign Sovereign Power hath: namely, in this manner; to punish her Subjects whatsoever with the Temporal Sword, either for the Breach of the Church's Canons and Decrees, or for the Breach of her own Laws. Again; That the words may be taken in such a sense, as that, though they signified no more (of which presently) yet none can justly subscribe them, supposing those things true concerning the Western Patriarch, and concerning Superior Councils, and concerning Church Constitutions, which are laid down in the First and Second Part of Church Government, and in the Fourth and Eighth Thesis: namely, if they be taken in this sense: That no Foreign Power hath any Ecclesiastical Superiority or Jurisdiction in any manner whatsoever over the Church of England (without reflecting on this Controversy at all; namely, Whether the Sovereign Power here at home, for the judging and reforming of what is Error, Heresy, Superstition &c, and for the abrogating or establishing the former Liturgies of the Church, Canons of Superior, or also National Synods, doth lie in the Prince; or in some others, viz the Clergy of this Nation; or also, in the Parliament: or in all these jointly; so that the Clergy can do none of these things without the Prince, or Parliament; nor Prince, without the major part of Clergy.) But these Two Senses of these words (of which the later is not justifiable) are, both of them, too much restrained, in respect of the intent of this Admonition, as may be gathered from the Precedents in the same Admonition; where the Queen's Sovereignty is extended to all the Particulars, wherein Henry the Eighth, and Edward the Sixth used or were allowed it. And from the Statute 1. Eliz. 1. but now recited; which surely this Admonition was not written to contradict or repeal. And from the ordinary practice of these Princes, which shall be more showed anon; without which Practice such Reformation could not have been effected; and therefore this Practice must be justified. And from the Testimony of the Protestant Writers; who vindicate and maintain a Supremacy of a much larger extent, and answerable to the Expressions in the Acts of Parliament; even to the Prince's not only ruling over all Persons Ecclesiastical, but judging and determining in matters Ecclesiastical, what therein is Dissonant from, or Consonant to, God's Word; and then establishing it in their Dominions, though contrary to former Church Canons, though without or against the Vote of the major part of their own Clergy; as shall be showed below §. 203 &c: which thing also is maintained to have been done by the Holy Kings of Israel. §. 75 To the Third the same may be repeated, which is said to the Second; To the Third and this part of the Article, though annexed for an Explanation, is couched in such general Terms, as that it will be subscribed to by all sides: (Fr. a S. Clara Expos. 39 Articles alloweth it; and saith also: Hic Articulus a Gallis & Parliamento Parisiensi, saluâ communione Ecclesiae, usurpatur.) Neither doth it contain any thing but which may well consist with the contradictory of that Proposition, which follows there, viz. That the Bishop of Rome hath no Jurisdiction in this Realm. §. 76 To the Fourth. 1. That the Proviso made by the Queen and her Parliament seems only to limit the Persons, To the Fourth. 1. whom the Queen shall nominate for her Delegates; that they shall adjudge nothing Error or Heresy without the consent of Parliament and Convocation (as likewise they made another Proviso, that they should adjudge no Order of the Parliament in Ecclesiastical matters to be Error or Heresy. See the same Statute:) but not to limit the Queen; who holds the Supremacy of this Church, and so these pretended Consequences thereof, as her own right, and not from Gift, but Recognition only, of the Parliament and Clergy; and, who, in the Statute, and, I think, in the Doctrine of our Divines, See below §. 204. &c, is acknowledged to have Power to reform Error, Heresy, Schism (which presupposeth judging what is so) without any such Proviso of consent of Councils, or Parliament: as also the pious Kings of Judah are urged to have done the like. Or if the Proviso limit the Prince also; That then the Practice of the Reforming Princes will not be justifiable, nor their Reformation; who have corrected many Doctrines without consent of Councils (nay when lawful Superior Synods have decreed the contrary) and without consent of Convocation; and others without consent of Parliament. But Secondly, The limitation here, whether of those Persons, or of the Prince, in adjudging Errors and Heresies in Divine matters, if the words be narrowly considered, seems to be, in effect, none. For (as you may see in the Proviso) if such thing hath been determined to be Heresy by the Authority of the Canonical Scripture (i. e. seem to them to be so) they need look no further for consent of Councils, or Parliament, or Clergy: and no more need they to regard Councils, though defining the contrary, if they have not defined so by the express and plain words of the said Canonical Scripture; of which thing they are to judge. See before §. 36. the Speech of the Lord Cromwell. Thirdly, Suppose there be a consent of the King and Clergy, without, or against Authority of Parliament: such thing cannot be adjudged Heresy, according to this Proviso; if it be extended▪ to the Prince. Fourthly, Supposing that the Clergy and Parliament judge something to be Error or Heresy, which former Councils, Superior to this National Synod, have determined to be a Divine Truth: this Provisoes allowing the Prince to follow the consent of his Parliament and Clergy, upon pretence of the Councils not defining according to express Scripture, will offend against the Fourth and Eighth Thesis. §. 77 Thus much to show, But such Supremacy not acknowledged or consented to by the Clergy. that the same Supremacy, that was acknowledged to King Henry and King Edward, was also to Queen Elizabeth, by her Parliament. But you may observe; that neither it (in such a sense as it was challenged) nor the Reformation, that was effected by it, were acknowledged, or consented to, by her Bishops, or the Clergy: I mean that Clergy which was in being at the beginning of her Reign; which hath been proved already, §. 54. &c, to be a lawful Clergy. And, when these things touching Supremacy and Reformation were passed by the Parliament, all the Bishops, that sat there, opposed them (See Cambden A. 2. Eliz.) probably, because in those Two former Kings days they had by Experience learned the Trespasses which such a Supremacy made upon the proper Rights and Jurisdictions of the Clergy; and the Irreverence, and Libertinism, and Distraction which the Innovation of the Liturgies and other Religious Rites brought into the Church; besides the unlawfulness of a part reforming against the whole. Thus at that time the Clergy behaved themselves. Neither, in lieu thereof, can the Concessions to these or the like things by the former Clergy that was under Henry the Eighth, or Edward the Sixth, be here pleaded; because these were retracted again by the Clergy in Queen Mary's time: neither can the Concession of the Clergy of later times, in Queen Elizabeth's Reign, be urged; because this Clergy was first changed and moulded to the Queen's Religion; the former being unlawfully ejected, as shall be showed hereafter. CHAP. VII. The Actings of Henry the Eighth (upon such Supremacy acknowledged) in Ecclesiastical Affairs. III. Head. §. 78 I have spoken hitherto from Sect. 26. concerning what manner of Supremacy it was, that these Princes assumed, How, according to such Supremacy assumed, these Three Prieces acted in Ecclesiastical Affair●. or also the Clergy or Parliament recognized, as their Right. In the Third place I promised to show you, how, according to this their conceived right, these Three Princes acted in matters Ecclesiastical And first to begin with Henry the Eighth. First, By virtue of such a Supremacy, he committed the former Canons and Laws of the Church, §. 79 calling them the Pontificial Laws, The Actings of Hen. 8th in Ecclesiastical Affairs. In the abrogating of former Ecclesiastical Laws, and compiling a new Body of them. to the Arbitrement of Thirty Two Persons nominated by him, half Laics; to be abrogated, corrected, reformed, as they, with his Confirmation, should think meet. Nec eo contentus (saith the Prefacer to the Reformatio legum Ecclesiasticarum Reprinted 1640.) cordatus Rex [Henry the Eighth] ut nomen, nudosque solum titulos a se suisque depelleret, nisi & jura decretaque omnia, quibus adhuc obstringebatur Ecclesia [Anglicana] perfringeret; huc quoque animum adiccit, ut universam secum remp. in plenam adsereret libertatem. Quocirca tum ex ipsius, tum ex publico senatus decreto, delecti sunt viri aliquot, usu & doctrinâ praestantes, numero 32, qui penitùs abolendo Pontificio juri (quod Canonicum vocamus) cum omni aliâ Decretorum & Decretalium facultate, novas ipsi leges, quae controversiarum & morum judicia regerent, Regis nomine & authoritate surrogarent. And thus saith the King himself, in his Epistle to all Arch-Bishops, Barons &c printed before the same Book; Abundè vobis declaratum hactenusfuit, quantopere, in hac nostrâ Brittanniâ, multis retro saeculis Episcopi Romani vis injusta religioni Christianae, verae doctrinae propagandae adversata est. Potestatem hanc huic cum divino munere sublatam esse manifestum est: & ne quid superesset, quo non planè fractam illius vim esse constaret; leges omnes, decreta atque instituta, quae ab authore Episcopo Romano profecta sunt, prorsus abroganda censuimus. Quorum loco en vobis authoritate nostrâ editas leges damus, quas a vobis omnibus suscipi, coli, & observari volumus, & sub nostrae indignationis paenâ mandamus. Thus the King. Where the meaning of the words, decreta quae ab authore Episcopo Romano profecta sunt, must be extended to Decrees, not only Pontifical, but Synodal, wherein the Pope presided; for the Canon-Law is compiled of both these: and over both these did the King's Supremacy claim Authority in his Dominions; and over whatsoever else seemed to him established, not by Divine, but only by Humane Authority. See before §. 22.23.27: And also the things changed by him were not the Decrees of Popes, but of Councils. §. 80 By virtue of such a Supremacy he put forth certain Injunctions A. D. 1536. concerning matters of Faith, Entitled Articles devised by the King's Highness, to stable Christian quietness and unity amongst the People; (you may read them set down at large in Mr. Fuller's Church History 5. l. p. 216, for Mr. Fox his Epitome of them conceals many things.) It is true that these Articles (as also the Six Articles published afterward 1539, and the Necessary Doctrine set forth 1543.) do, for the matter of them (as they seem to me) discede in nothing from the Doctrines of former Councils; nor have nothing in them favouring the reformed Opinions [for they allow Invocation of Saints, Prayer for the Dead, and Purgatory; kneeling, and praying before, though not to Images; the Corporal Presence of Christ in the Sacrament; Auricular Confession; and do not deny Seven Sacraments, (as some misrelate them) because they speak only of Three; which Seven Sacraments are all acknowledged and treated on in Necessary Doctrine, etc.] And it cannot be denied, that the Clergy of King Henry also (whom he used, much more than his Successors, King Edward, and Queen Elizabeth, in his Consultations concerning Religion) were, except in the introducing of the King's Supremacy, very opposite to the Reformation of other Doctrines or Ceremonies in the Church; as appears by the Mala dogmata, transcribed out of the Records by Mr. Fuller (5. l. p. 209.) to the Number of 67. (much agreeing with the Modern Tenants of Puritans, Anabaptists and Quakers;) which Mala Dogmata being by the Lower House of Convocation at this time presented to the Upper House of Bishops, to have them condemned, occasioned the production of these Injunctions. But yet notwithstanding all this, for the manner of the Edition of these Injunctions or Articles, it is to be noted; that the King by virtue of his Supremacy commands them to be accepted by his Subjects, not as appearing to him the Ordinances or Definitions of the Church, but as judged by him agreeable to the Laws and Ordinances of God: and makes the Clergy therein only his Counsellor and Adviser; not a Lawgiver. See besides the Title, his words in the Preface to those Injunctions: Which determination, debatement and agreement of the Clergy (saith he) forasmuch as we think to have proceeded of a good, right, and true judgement, and to be agreeable to the Laws and Ordinances of God we have caused the same to be published, requiring you to accept, repute, and take them accordingly [i. e. as agreeable to God's Laws and Ordinances.] So where in these Injunctions he commandeth the Observation of holidays, he saith, We must keep holidays unto God, in Memory of Him, and his Saints, upon such days, as the Church hath ordained: except they be mitigated and moderated by the Assent and Commandment of us, the Supreme Head, to the Ordinaries; and then the Subjects ought to obey it [such command.] §. 81 By virtue of such a Supremacy he afterward published a Model of the Doctrine of the Christian Faith, In putting forth a Model of the Doctrine of the Christian Faith, and the S●x A ticles. and of the lawful Rites and Ceremonies of the same, for matter of Doctrine not much differing from the Injunctions mentioned before; which Book he Entitled, A Necessary Doctrine for all sorts of People; adding a Preface thereto, in his Royal name, to all his faithful and loving Subjects, That they might know (saith he) the better, in those dangerous times, what to believe in point of Doctrine; and how to carry themselves in points of Practice. Which Book, before the publishing thereof, after it (saith Dr. Heylin, Reform. Chur. Engl. §. 4. p. 23.) was brought into as much Perfection, as the said Arch-Bishops, Bishops and other Learned Men [appointed by the King to this work] would give it without the concurrence of the Royal Assent, was presented once again to the King's consideration; who very carefully perused and altered many things with his own hand, as appears by the Book itself extant in Sr. R. Cotton's Library: and having so altered, and corrected it in some Passages, returned it to the Archbishop of Canterbury [Archbishop Cranmer] who bestowed some further pains upon it; that, being to come forth in the King's Name, and by his Authority, there might be nothing in the same, that might be justly reprehended. For a Preparatory to which Book, that so it might come forth with the greater credit, the King caused an Act to pass in Parliament, 34, 35. Hen. 8.1. c. for the abolishing of all Books and Writings comprising any matter of Christian Religion contrary to that Doctrine, which since the Year 1540 is, or any time during the King's life shall be, set forth by his Highness. Thus Dr. Heylin. Which Definitions Decrees, and Ordinances, so set forth by the King, all his Subjects were fully to believe, obey, and observe. 32. Hen. 8. 26. c. See before §. 32. And if any Spiritual Person should preach or teach contrary to those Determinations, or any other that should be so set forth by his Majesty; such Offender the third time contrary to that Act of Parliament was to be deemed and adjudged an Heretic, and to suffer pains of death by Burning. See before §. 34. By which Act therefore, amongst other things, the holding of the Pope's Supremacy, which is contrary to the Doctrine of that Book, is declared Heresy. And see the like ordained by Parliament concerning the Six Articles in 31. Hen. 8.14. c. where it is Enacted, That every Person that doth preach, teach, declare, argue against any of the Six Articles, being thereof convicted, shall be deemed and adjudged an Heretic. §. 82 And thus Heresy, now belonging to the King's Cognizance, as the Church's Supreme Head, became also, by reason of the Parliaments co-legislative Power joined with the Kings, a thing of the Parliaments Cognizance as well as the King's. Of their Cognizance; not only for the declaring and punishing, but the adjudging of it. And their Vote herein was joined at least with that of the Clergy, if not in Authority preferred before it; as appears by these, and those other Passages in the Statute 25. Hen. 8.14. c. mentioned before §. 34; and in the two Provisoes of the Statute 1. Eliz. 1. c. mentioned §. 70. And see the Reason given by Dr. Heylin, why Parliaments, which in former Ages abstained from them, in this Age of Henry the Eighth began to intermeddle in stating of matters of Religion (namely this reason, A new Supreme in Ecclesiastical Affairs then set up) Engl. Reform. Justified p. 41. Where he first relateth, out of Walsingham, how (long since) Wickleff, having many Doctrines strange and new, which he desired to establish in the Church of England, and seeing he could not authorise them in a regular way, addressed his Petition to the Parliament; laying this down for a Position, That the Parliament might lawfully examine and reform the Disorders and Corruptions of the Church, and upon a discovery of the Errors and Corruptions of it, divest her of all Tithes and Temporal Endowments, till she were reform. But neither his Petition, nor Position (saith he) found any welcome in that Parliament: [and then he goeth on thus;] To say truth; as long as the Clergy were in Power, and had Authority in Convocation to do what they would, in matters which concerned Religion; those of the Parliament conceived it neither safe nor fitting, to intermeddle in such business as concerned the Clergy; for sear of being questioned for it at the Church's Bar [the Church being then conceived to have the just Supremacy herein:] But when that Power was lessened (though it were not lost) by the Submission of the Clergy to King Henry the Eighth, and by the Act of the [Kings] Supremacy [in matters of Religion] which ensued upon it; then did the Parliament begin to entrench upon the Church's Rights; to offer at, and entertain, such businesses, as formerly were held peculiar to the Clergy only; next to dispute their Charters, and reverse their Privileges; and finally to impose many hard Laws upon them. Thus he. Which Example, of the Parliaments meddling with Opinions and stating of Heresy, thus begun under Henry the Eighth's Church Supremacy, hath made some Parliaments since also so active (with the assistance of some Persons, selected by them out of the Clergy, of the same Inclinations) in altering, modelling, establishing, an Orthodox Religion: and hath emboldened Mr. Prinn (see Heylin. p. 27.) to affirm it an ancient, genuine, just and lawful Prerogation thereof, to establish true Religion in this Church [by which establishing if Mr. Prin means, not judging of Truth and Error in matter of Religion, but only requiring Obedience to the Judgement of the Church; this is willingly granted to be an establishing, duly belonging to that Supreme Court.] §. 83 I have dwelled the longer on the Instances foremen tioned, Where Codeer. the complaints made by P●testaats of his abuse of the Suprenacy. that you may see, when a Prince (together with his particular Clergy, or rather whom out of them he shall choose, without these being linked in a due subordination to the whole) claimeth such a power of composing Models of Christian Faith; and declaring all those his Subjects Heretics, who do not believe and obey such his Determinations; what danger, what mutability Christian Religion incurs, in such a Nation; as often as this Supreme and Independent Head is not every way Orthodox. And so it happened in the Acts of this new-sprung Supremacy of Henry; that those, who much pleased themselves in it, whilst it run the course they would have it, in abating the former Power of the Clergy, in throwing down Monasteries, Religious Vows, Relics, Images, &c: yet afterward lamented it as much, when necessity of the King's compliance with Foreign Princes, and the influence of new evil Counsellors (saith Fox p. 1036.) made the same Supremacy produce a contrary sort of Fruit; which they could not so easily digest. I mean the Six Articles, here also pronouncing Heresy to the Opposers, and punishing the same with Fire and Faggot: and the Prohibition and suppression of many Godly Books, as Mr. Fox calls them; but full of Errors and Heresies, as the Supreme Head of this Church, and also as Archbishop Cranmer (whose Declaration against them see in Fox p. 1136.) then judged them (some of the Contents of which Godly Books, as they were then collected by Cranmer, and other Prelates, you may see in Fox ibid.); and the Prohibiting all Women, Artificers, Husbandmen, &c, from reading the Scriptures; of which more anon. §. 84 Which Supremacy so ill used, as he thought, forced from Mr. Fox that sad complaint, both, in particular, concerning the Kings imposing of the Six Articles p. 1037. That, although they contained manifest Errors, Heresies, and Absurdities against all Scripture and Learning [whereby we may see; how these Supreme Heads also may deviate from, the truth; and how dangerous it is to commit the Reformation of all Errors and Heresies into their hands, who by this Power, instead thereof, may enjoin Errors, and Heresies; and that even against all Scripture and Learning (as Henry the Eighth, though a Scholar, is here supposed to have done;) and that even to pronouncing those Heretics, that do not submit to such Heresy.] (he goes on) Yet such was he miserable Adversity of that time, and of the Power of Darkness [yet King Henry said the times were full of Light] that the simple Cause of Truth was utterly forsaken, of all friends. For every man seeing the King's mind [who was now the Legislator in Spirituals] so fully addicted, upon politic respects, to have these Articles to pass forward, few or none in that Parliament would appear; who either could perceive, that which was to be defended; or durst defend, that they understood to be true. And also in general concerning that Kings managing his Supremacy, p. 1036. (from which Posterity might have learned some wisdom) To many (saith he) who be yet alive, and can testify these things, it is not unknown; How variable, the State of Religion stood in these days; How hardly, and with what difficulty, it came forth; what chances and changes it suffered: even as the King was ruled and gave ear, sometimes to one, sometimes to another; so, one while it went forward, at another Season as much backward again; and sometime clean altered and changed for a Season; according as they could prevail who were about the King. So long as Queen Anne lived, the Gospel had indifferent Success. [Here (then) the Supreme Head of the Church was directed by a Woman; and managed the Affairs of Religion accordingly.] After that she, by sinister Instigation of some about the King, was made away, the course of the Gospel began again to decline; but that the Lord stirred op the Lord Cromwell opportunely to help in that behalf; who did much avail for the increase of God's true Religion [Here then the Supreme Head of the Church was directed by a Laic; and managed Religion accordingly] and much more had he brought to perfection; if the pestilent Adversaries, maligning the prosperous Glory of the Gospel, had not supplanted his virtuous Proceed [Mr. Fox names not Cranmer amongst these Worthies; because he was an Agent in many of those Proceed of Henry the Eighth, which displease Mr. Fox.] After the taking away of which Cromwell, the State of Religion more and more decayed, during all the residue of the Reign of King Henry. And amongst these Adversaries was Stephen Gardiner; who brought the King at length clean out of credit with the Reformed Religion etc. Thus Fox describes the Steerers of the King in his Determinations concerning Church matters. And had Mr. Fox been of another persuasion; you would have found, in his Style, the Lord stirring up the zealous Bishop of Winchester Gardiner; and Satan raising Cromwell the Pestilent Adversary of True Religion. §. 35 And somewhat like to Mr. Fox's is that Saying of Old Latimer to Ridley, p. 1562, to show the miserable fluctuating of this Nation, after its having left the rest of the Body of the Church, and set up a new Head for its self, I refer you (saith he) to your own Experience, to think of our Country-Parliaments, and Convocations; how and what you have seen and heard. The more part in my time did bring forth Six Articles; for then the King would so have it, being seduced of certain. Afterward the more part did expel the same Articles; our good Josias [King Edward] willing to have it so. The same Articles now again (alas) [when the Lay Supreme Head was removed] another great (but worse) part hath restored. O what an Uncertainty is this! Now to proceed in our Story. §. 86 By virtue of such Supremacy King Henry took away the just Authority of the Patriarch established by Councils, In the consecrating and confirming of Bishops and Metropolitan. for Confirmation of Metropolitans in this Church subject to his Patriarchy; and necessitated also his own Clergy, under the Penalty of incurring a Praemunire, to consecrate, and invest into Bishoprics and Archbishoprics void, any Person whatever whom he should nominate and present. Sec. before §. 29. He also took away the Patriarches Authority, for the receiving of Appeals, and exercising final Judicature in Spiritual Controversies; contrary to what is showed in Chur. Gou. 1. Part: And also took away the final judging and decision of such Controversies, not only from the Patriarch in particular, but also from all the Clergy in general; not making the Archbishop of Canterbury, or Convocation, but himself, or his Substitutes, the ultimate Judges thereof. See Statute 25. Hen. 8, 19 c. §. 31. contrary to the First and Second Theses. §. 87 By virtue of such a Supremacy, and Headship over this Church, It the putting down of Monasteries etc. he took Possession of all the Monasteries and Religious Houses of this Land (which were very numerous, small and great; and likewise of all Chaunteries, Free-Chappels, Hospitals, Colleges (except those of the Two Universities; which, upon their humble Addresses made to the King, were reprieved, Herb. Hist. Hen. 8. p. 537;) of their Lands and Goods: Places dedicated to Pious and Sacred uses; and put into the hands of the Church, as by the gift of the Doners, so not without the consent of the Prince. Their Buildings he caused to be defaced, their Churches demolished. Their Lands he enjoyed himself, setting up a Court of Augmentation of the Revenues of the Crown; or sold, or gave to particular Families of the Laity (Cromwell telling him, that, the more had interest in them, the more they would be irrevocable) to them and their Heirs, without any condition (advantageous to Religion, Learning, or Charity) save only one; that Hospitality and Husbandry should be preserved by them, which he cautioned, upon the Penalty of paying every Month 6. l. 13. s. 4. d; for which reason the King is said to have passed them away at such easy Rates. Lord Herbert p. 376. Which Forfeitures, upon the Hospitality and Husbandry neglected, being very great, were abolished by King James, at the Supplication of the Parliament 21. Jac. 28. c. And all this he did without any benefit returned to God's Service, or to the Church, in lieu thereof; save only that having possessed himself of 645 Monasteries, 90 Colleges in several Shires, 110 Hospitals, 2374 Chaunteries and Free-Chappels; the yearly value of all which is cast up to have been 161100 l. (Besides the Plate, Church-Ornaments and Treasure given in Honour of some Saints; Besides the Money made of Timber, Led, Bells &c. Besides the Stock also of Cattle and Corn, the Goods and Chattles of the 376 smaller Monasteries; being valued at a low rate at 100000 l.) I say, Her●●377 having possessed himself of all this, he is said to have returned to Pious Uses some 8000 l. per annum (perhaps about a Thirtieth part of what he took away) in erecting some new Bishoprics, of Oxford, Peterborough, Chester, Bristol, and Gloucester; and in changing of the former Monks of many of the Ancient Cathedral Churches into a Dean and Canons. (See for what is said Cambd. Brit. and Lord Herb. p. 377. 443, 444.) Neither doth the Parliament, in giving their consent to such alienation, caution any further concerning Pious Uses; save only, that the King should do and use therewith his own Will, to the pleasure of Almighty God, and to the honour and profit of the Realm.;;; See Statute 27. Hen. 8. 28. He freed and dismissed the Religious therein from observing those Rules of Poverty and Obedience in a Monastic Life, which they had before solemnly vowed: I suppose by virtue of that dispensative Power; which he finding annexed to the Pope's, conceived that he inherited by his, Supremacy. See Fox p. 1235. where 'tis said, That the Persons therein bound and professed to Obedience to a person, place, habit, &c, upon the dissolution appointed by the King's Majesty's Authority, as Supreme Head of the Church, are clearly released etc. All which things are done by him contrary to the Definitions and Canons of the Church in former Councils, concerning their Interpretation of Sacrilege, and concerning the unlawful alienation of things, and non-violation of persons, once dedicated and consecrated to God: And all which things were done by him without any Concession or Approbation (that I can find) even of the particular Clergy of this Nation; and with the great grief of the People, saith Lord Herb: p. 377. (those who got nothing by this Plunder) to see the Monks and Nuns wand'ring abroad; and the Churches and Chapels perverted to secular and profane uses. §. 88 For these things see the Relation of zealous Mr. Fox, p. 976. Shortly after the overthrow of the Pope (saith he) consequently began by little and little to follow the ruin of Abbeys and other Religious Houses in England; in a right Order and Method, by God's Divine Providence. For neither could the fall of Monasteries have followed after, unless that the Suppression of the Pope had gone before; neither could any true Reformation of the Church have been attempted, unless the Subversion of these Superstitious Houses had been joined therewith. with. Whereupon the same Year the King, having Tho. Cromwell of his Council, sent Dr. Lee to visit the Abbeys, Priories, and Nunneries in all England; and to set at liberty all such Religious Persons, as desired to be free; and all other that were under the Age of 24 Years: providing withal, that such Monks, Canons, and Friars, as were dismissed, should have given them by the Abbot or Prior, instead of their habit, a Secular Priest's Gown, and Forty Shillings of Money; and likewise the Nuns to have such Apparel, as Secular Women did then commonly use; and be suffered to go where they would. [Cromwell saying, Lord Herb. pag. 462. That this Expulsion of the Monks &c was no more than a restoring them to their first Institution of being Lay and labouring Persons; and that they might keep the austerity of life, in their several Orders, enjoined them, in any condition.] At which time also from the said Abbeys, and Monasteries were taken their chief Jewels and Relics. And see the words of the Statute 31. Hen. 8.13. c, where all and singular Religious Persons, of what Order, Rule or Habit soever, are said to be put at their liberties from the danger, servitude and condition of their Religion and Profession, whereunto they were professed: and have free liberty given them to purchase to them and their Heirs in Fee-Simple, Fee-tail &c, Manors, Lands, etc. in like manner, as though they or any of them had never been professed, nor entered into any such Religion. And for the ground of all this, viz. The Kings conceived lawful Church Supremacy to act such things, see some of the Forms of the Monk's Resignations transcribed by Mr. Fuller Chur. Hist. 6. l. p. 321. which runs thus. Whereas your Highness being Supreme Head, immediately after Christ, of his Church in this your Realm of England, and so consequently general, and only, Reformator of all Religious Persons there, have full Authority to correct or dissolve, at your Grace's Pleasure and Liberty, all Convents and Religious Companies abusing the Rules of their Profession &c therefore etc. §. 89 Now the whole carriage and pretence of the dissolution of these Religious Places, The Pretences thereof. if you desire to know the Particulars, was this. The King though having left to him a very great Treasure by his Father Henry the Seventh, yet by his high Expenses, and frequent-Engagements in Foreign Wars and the Interests of Neighbour Princes, became very necessitous; and for the continuance of the like Expenses stood in need of an extraordinary recruit. Whereupon, as some think, he was first invited to this Act, by those 40 smaller Monasteries, which he saw Wolsey (who likewise had much used in this Affair his diligent Servant Cromwell) had obtained by grant from the Pope, Clement the Seventh, to translate this Means of some of those Houses of Devotion, which in this Nation abounded, to the maintenance of two Colleges built by him for the advancement of Learning; of which Houses there was more scarcity. And he is said to have been excited also thereto by Cromwell, who was now, after Wolsey's fall, the King's Servant; one already experienced in this matter; and who could best inform concerning the Treasure attainable thereby: especially when the King, being now invested with the Supremacy, could confer on himself the same Dispensation, for taking more; which the Pope had done on Wolsey, for a few. The King knew also, that he had the Laity and the Parliament ready to second him; who were willing by any means to remove the burden of furnishing the King's necessities from themselves, and to give up the Church's Patrimony to save their own: and besides, who in those days looked, with no good Eye, on the Authority of the Clergy (against whom the Commons had formerly put up a Supplication to the King) and the Wealth of the monastics; jord Herb. p. 329. Fox. p. 960. and who also might expect no small share in this Booty. And some reason he had also to hope for the connivance of the Clergy, from the ancient difference, that is between Regulars and Seculars; and from these Religious Houses being exempted from the Jurisdiction and Visitation of Bishops; and from the access of Benefit, which they might hope from the others mine, to some places of cure, that were meanly provided for. Add to this; that the number of them in this Nation was conceived to be excessive, in proportion to a well composed State, (so the multiplying of them accidentally being their destruction): and Lastly; that these Religious Houses were looked on as the chief Supporters of the Papal Supremacy, and Opposers of the Regal Authority in matters Ecclesiastical: and in Innovations in Religion, their Vow of Obedience to their Superiors leaving them less flexible to change, and their Vow of Poverty and Single Life less obnoxious to those fears in declaring of their minds; which others are subject to, in respect of their Estates and Posterity, or their expectation of Preferments. §. 90 Swayed by these Motives yet the King invaded not all the Religious Houses in the Land at once; but first began to take Possession of the smaller Ones, such as were under 200 l. annual Revenue; and this upon these Three Pretences (see Statute 27. Hen. 8.28. c.) 1. That the Persons living therein were very vicious; whereas (saith that Statute made for the alienation of these, before the Attachment of the rest thought on) in the great Solemn Monasteries of the Realm, Thanks be to God, Religion is right well kept and observed. 2. That these small Societies were not so capable of Reformation, as the greater. 3. That the greater were not sufficiently replenished. Whereupon (saith that Statute) the Lords and Commons by a great deliberation finally be resolved; That it is and shall be much more to the Pleasure of Almighty God, and for the Honour of this Realm, that the Possessions of those small Religious Houses, not being spent, spoiled and wasted for the increase of maintenance of Sin, mould be used and converted to better uses; and the unthrifty Religious Persons so spending the same should be compelled to reform their lives. §. 91 But afterward, the Revenue of these by the King sold, spent, or disposed-of, the sweetness of such a considerable wealth already tasted, the King's great Expenses very craving, and his Courtiers and Favourites not yet satisfied; from smaller beginnings he ascends higher; and the great Monasteries also begin now to be looked after. And now within three or four years they of the great Monasteries are so overgrown with vice, that were so right before; that complaints are made of them: and Visitors, Cromwell being made Visitor-General, are sent, both to discover their crimes, and to restrain, by certain Injunctions from the King, their former liberty. Amongst whom many heinous faults (especially as for Incontinency) are found out: whilst the more notorious Offenders, somewhat to excuse themselves, impeached others; and the Religious mutually recriminated one another. Upon these Delinquencies now discovered in the great Houses, as before in the lesser; together with many impostures and falsifications of Miracles, to procure greater resort and gain to such Houses; Next, the more dignified and powerful amongst the Religious are acquainted, what Penalties they have incurred, and have seen already inflicted on others; and that the King, as Supreme Head of this Church, might also depose their Societies, alienate and dispose of their Estates, as he saw sit, to those who would serve God better; but that they might one way sooner obtain, both security and pardon for their past faults, and provision for their future livelihoods; if they would rather preventively resign their Foundations and Possessions into the King's hands, then stay to have them by his just power taken from them: especially, since the King on such condition would either to the present Incumbents give other Preferments; or allow considerable Pensions, equalling their former Income, to the unpreferred, for their lives. And thus; many, if not all, of these greater Foundations having seen already the lesser seized on; some persons having fair hopes of being well provided for, others of Impunity, others also desiring more liberty, and weary of the fetters of a Cloistered life, especially as restrained by the new Regal Injunctions, giveup and make-over their Monasteries, and all the Estate belonging thereto, under their Hands and Seals, to the King and his Heirs for ever. And the King again returns yearly a vast sum of Money in Pensions bestowed on the more Eminent of the monastics for term of life. A many of which Pensions you may see set down in Mr. Fuller 6. l. p. 304. &c. who also ibid. p. 316. makes this Relation how the Monks were tempted with them; It was also pressed upon the Monks, Friars, and Nuns; that they thro' their viciousness being obnoxious to the King's anger, this [i. e. the taking away of their Estates] might and would be done without their consent: So that it was better for them, rebus sic stantibus, to make a Virtue of Necessity; the rather, because this Compliment conduced nothing to the Kings Right, on whom the Parliament had already bestowed those Abbey-Lands; but might add much to their own advantage, as being the way, whereby their Pensions might be the more easily procured, largely allotted, and surely paid unto them. Thus Herald And thus the Lord Herb. p. 442. to the same purpose, Cromwell, betwixt Threats, Gifts, Persuasions, Promises, and whatsoever might make men obnoxious, obtained of the Abbots, Priors, Abbesses, &c, that their Houses might be given up. Among which those, that offered their Monasteries freely, got best Conditions of the King: for if they stood upon their right, the Oath of Supremacy, and some other Statutes and Injunctions, brought them in danger; or their Crimes at least made them guilty of the Law; which also was quickly executed, and particularly on the Abbots of Glassenbury, Colchester, and Reading; who more than any else resisted. §. 92 When these Lands also were dispersed and disposed-of, and this great income spent, the King's Necessities being no less argent upon him, than formerly, nay more (he having lately engaged a War with France and Scotland) the glean as it were of this Harvest, which before lay unregarded, are now looked after; and all the Chaunteries, Free-Chappels, Colleges (except the Universities) Fraternities &c (Dedicated also to such pious uses, as neither the King nor Parliament of that time disallowed, viz. offering the Holy Eucharist, distributing Alms, and saying Prayers for the faithful deceased, as likewise the advancing of Learning, sustenance of the Poor &c,) are thrown into the King's Lap, upon pretence of abuses found in these too. For which see Statute 37, Hen. 8.4. c. where the reason of giving them away to the King and frustrating the uses for which they were founded is; lest the Priests or Governors, that enjoyed them, should sell them away and frustrate the same uses; (as some had done already, probably for prevention of the Storm they saw coming upon these after the Monasteries:) as if such faults of the Incumbents were capable of no other cure; nor these Lands preservable by Law to the Founder's intentions. §. 93 Now to reflect a little on these Adds of King Henry so odious to the memory of posterity; Reflections upon these Pre●eaces. in them he seem many ways void of excuse, For 1. First; For the King's Necessities, many of them seem to be faultily contracted, 1. by (to say no worse) needless expense; and because this high-spirited and valiant Prince would needs engage himself (as Lord Herb. p. 511. judiciously observes) beyond what was requisite; and would be an Actor for the most part, where he needed only to have been a Spectator. And methinks these things do not suit well together; to pull down Religious Houses for mere necessity; Herbert. p. 513. and in such Expeditions to cross the Seas in a Ship trimmed with Sails of Cloth of Gold. §. 94 Secondly, For the Precedent of Cardinal Wolsey; 1. 2. There was nothing done in it, but what was justifiable by the Ecclesiastical Canons: it being lawful in some Cases, and on some Conditions, for the Supreme Governors amongst Churchmen to alienate, or rather to transfer from one pious use to another, those things which are given to them; or, being given to God, are in his right possessed by them, as his Ministers. But hence will it riot follow; that any Lay, though the Sovereign, Power, who is not the Receiver or Possessor of such a Gift, but rather the Donor (for without the King's Consent the Church receives no such Gifts) can afterward resume from God and the Church the disposal of it. Here I may say as St. Peter Acts 5. 4. Before it was so bestowed by him, was it not his own? But once so passed away, and his Mort-main allowed to it; it cannot then be recalled, upon any Secular Title. But Secondly, Suppose the King Heir to all that Supremacy, which in these matters the Pope or other Ecclesiastical Persons have formerly exercised; yet this Power will not extend to that which the King assumed. For the Pope pretends to no such Power, as to alienate the Church Revenues, for to spend them himself; or to dispose of them in what manner, or to what Persons, he pleaseth; but only for some just cause, i.e. in a prudential arbitration, for an equal or greater Benefit thence accrueing to the Church, or Christianity. Which also was observed in his concession of those to Cardinal Wolsey, in a time when Religious abounded, more than Scholars; and by that Concession the Church still enjoys them. But whither Henry the Eighth's Abbey-lands went, and what uses they have served, we all know; and this some think, to the enriching of few, but ruin of many, Noble Families in this Nation. See Dr. Heylin's Hist. of Reform. of Qu. Mary p. 45. and p. 67, 68 §. 95 Thirdly, Neither were the Vices of those Religious a sufficient ground of overthrowing their Societies and Foundations; 3. because the King might have punished, ejected, changed, the Persons, without taking away the Houses or Maintenance (as is frequently done in all Societies; and, particularly, in Religious Houses abroad) unless we will say, that the English only are in such faults incurable. Neither can it be pleaded, That such Lands are given to pious uses with such a tacit condition, That, when abused, they may be recalled; so long as these abuses are some other way remediable: for else, what thing is there dedicated to God's Service; which some Possessors do not, at some time, abuse? But if it be said, that the abuse and fault lies chief in the very Institution and Laws themselves of such Foundations: Yet are these Laws also capable of being rectified and reform, so as God may be holily served in such a Monastic life; as the Protestants themselves say he was, in the Primitive times. But, if the Monastic Laws here were so corrupt; how come the very same Laws abroad not to produce the same fruit, in Nations said to be more inclined to such Vices? How come those Houses there, to this day to be not only tolerated, but reverenced? Or how happened, under the same Laws here, but three or four Years before, in the great Monasteries, Religion, Thanks be to God, to be right well kept and observed? Stat. 27. Hen. 8.28. c. But suppose the King had questioned the lawfulness of these Institutions; yet was he no competent Judge thereof; it being a Theological Controversy, and decided on the other side by the lawful judge thereof in several Superior Councils, as is showed in Discourse of Celibacy. But indeed that which leaves the King the more destitute of any Apology in this kind is; that, whereas the chief fault charged upon these cloistered People was Incontinency, the King, whilst he took away these Orders, did justify this Vow, at least of perpetual Chastity, to be a Vow lawful, and by every one observable; as you may see in the fourth of the six Famous Articles: and still did prohibit all such Persons, as had taken this Vow, when in Monasteries, from marrying afterward, when they were ejected; condemning the Transgressor's hereof to suffer death. The Words of that fourth Article are these, That the Vows of Chastity or Widowhood by man or woman made to God advisedly [i. e. as I suppose, deliberately; or, if you will, with the approbation of our Spiritual Father] aught to be observed by the Law of God; and that it exempteth them from other liberties of Christian People, which without that [Vow] they might enjoy. The Penalty of which Article was, That if any, after a Vow advisedly made, did marry; in so doing he should be adjudged as a Felon; and lose both Life, and forfeit Goods without any benefit of Clergy. See Fox p. 1037. Now if any can make this Vow [advisedly] I see not how we can say, that the Monks do not so; unless you will say, That any Breach of a Vow argues it not to have been formerly made with advice; but then, why are these Religious expressly restrained afterward from Marrying? Stat. 31. Hen. 8.6. c. where also [advisedly] seems to be interpreted the vowing after One and Twenty Years old, uncompelled. As for the falsification of Miracles; to discover and publish the Cheat, is sufficient to cure the present Fault, and to prevent the like: and when the Images were taken away, the Houses needed not to be pulled down. §. 96 And as unexcusable seems the King to be, in taking away Chaunteries &c, given for the relief of the faithful, deceased with some Imperfections, by the Sacrifice of the Eucharist, and annual Alms, and Prayers offered to God for them; whilst he allowed a benefit in these things; and himself left the like Pensions; and ordered, that the same things, of which he had deprived others deceased, should be done for himself, when deceased; as you may see at large in his Will transcribed by Mr. Fuller. And therefore, whereas Edward the Sixth had these things given him again by Parliament (because Henry the Eighth died not long after the Donation) upon this reason; because the Opinions of Purgatory, and Masses satisfactory to be done for them that be departed, were vain and superstitious: Stat. 1. Edw. 6.14. c. Yet so it was, that other causes and other grievances, than these, were glad to be invented, to make way for King Henry to lay hands on them. Stat. 37. Hen. 8.4. c. §. 97 Fourthly, 4. If it be said, that the Religious themselv voluntarily resigned these Possessions into the King's hands (See Stat. 31. Hen. 8.13. c.) Yet was this Act of theirs (supposed never so free from Compulsion) invalid: because they could not give away for ever, what they had Title to only for term of Life; neither yet could they alienate them for their lives from that use, to which they were dedicated; without committing Sacrilege. §. 98 Fifthly, Lastly, That which is said, 5. of an excessive number of them in this Nation, if it be a just Apology for taking away some, the Supernumerary; yet will it be none, for taking away all the rest. And that which follows, concerning their averseness to the King's Reformations, is granted; and shows indeed, that the demolishing of them was to good purpose for attaining the King's ends; but it shows not, that the demolishing therefore of them is lawful; unless, first, such ends be justifiable; and secondly, cannot otherwise be compassed. And thus much of the Kings destroying Monasteries. §. 99 By virtue of such a Supremacy, by which he was conceived to have Power to dispense with any, In the dispeasing with the former Church. Canous conMarriages, Fasts holidays etc. if only humane, though Ecclesiastical, Constitution (See Stat. 25. Hen. 8.21. recited before §. 27.) He made Orders, and gave Dispensations in matters of Marriage; against the former Ecclesiastical Canons. See Stat. 32. Hen. 8.38. c. where it is said, By this Act we [i. e. the King and Parliament] do declare all persons to be lawful, that be not prohibited by God's Law, to marry. Of which Licence (saith Fuller Chur. Hist. 5. l. p. 236.) the King himself had the first fruits, in marrying Katherine Howard, Cosen-German to Anne Bullen his second Wife. [And you may find, in the Preface of the same Act, this urged also as a motive of casting off the Pope's usurped Power in such matters, That King Henry was otherwise by Learning, taught, than his Predecessors in times past long time have been. For King Henry was designed by his Father for a Churchman: and during the life of his Elder Brother, was educated in Learning, and not unstudied in School Divinity. Lord Herbert's Hist. p. 2. Therefore in the first Articles of Religion, which he put forth 1536, which were devised by the King himself, and so recommended to the Convocation house by Cromwell (part of which House, saith Lord Herb. p. 405, leaned to the Lutheran Doctrine and Rites) he took pains to peruse and moderate their Arguments on either side, adding Animadversions with his own hand, as may be seen in the Records. And in the second Articles of Religion, called a Necessary Doctrine for all sorts of People, published 1543. he carefully perused them (saith Dr. Heylin p. 23.) and altered many things with his own hand, as appears by the Book still extant in Sr. R. Cotton's Library. And in the Answer, which he writ himself to the Yorkshire Rebels offended with the State of Religion, he hath this Clause; That he marvelled much, that ignorant People would go about to take upon them to instruct him (who had been noted something Learned) what the Faith should be. Without which consciousness and esteem of his own Learning and Abilities, it is probable he would have been a more dutiful Son of the Church; Her. p. 417. and never have owned such a Supremacy in stating Theological Controversies, with such severe punishments to all that thwarted his Doctrines: Whereby he seemed to act the Part, though he assumed not the Title of the Archbishop of Canterbury; to which place his Father is said to have designed him.] By virtue of the same Supremacy he made Orders, and gave Dispensations in matters of Fasts; of holidays; of Election and Consecration of Bishops; as you may see in Fox, in the King's Injunctions and Proclamations p 960. 999. 1104. and before in §. 36. and §. 68 §. 100 By virtue of such a Supremacy, concerning several other Ceremonies, as he calls them, the King speaketh in this wise, Fox p. 1035. in his Injunctions put forth 1539. Commanding that the Holy Bread and Holy Water, Procession, kneeling, and creeping on Good-Fryday to the Cross, and Easter-day setting up Lights to the Corpus Christi, bearing of Candles on Candlemas-day, Purification of Women delivered of Child, offering of Chrysoms, keeping of the four Offering-days; paying their Tithes; and such like Ceremonies be observed and kept; till it shall please the King to change or abrogate any of them. [Where note, that as Colleges (see before §. 87.) so here Tithes also are conceived to be in the disposal of this Supreme Head of the English Church.] §. 101 By virtue of such Supremacy he, without any consent of the Clergy, 1. by his Vicegerent Cromwell, first, ordered; That English Bibles should be provided and put in every Church; and that the Parson of the Parish (say the Injunctions 1536. and 1538. set forth by Cromwell) shall discourage no man from the reading or hearing of the said Bible; but shall expressly provoke, stir and exhort every Person to read the same, admonishing them nevertheless to avoid all contention and altercation therein, and to use an honest sobriety in the inquisition of the true sense of the same; and to refer the explication of the obscure places to men of higher judgement in Scripture. Which Publication of the Scriptures, in the beginning of his recession from Rome, perhaps he was the more inclined to; for two things, wherein he pleaded much their evidence in his justification, The one; See Fox p. 1000 That it was unlawful for him to have his Brother's Wife. The other; That the Pope could not, by them, claim any Jurisdiction over England: He justly therefore relinquishing the one, because it was there prohibited; and disacknowledging the other, because not there commanded. Also in this Translation (as those words 1. Pet. 2. 〈◊〉 were then, and till the end of King Edward's days, rendered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, submit yourselves unto the King.) He was declared the chief Head of the Church of England. But these words were changed afterward, when Queen Elizabeth had refused such Title, into King as having the Pre-eminence, and King as Supreme. But upon what ground soever it was, that he made the Holy Scriptures common to the Vulgar for a time; afterward, when by three or four Years experience he had seen, that so many Divisions came thereby; the unlearned and unstable, now, as in St. Peter's time, z. Pet. 3.16. wresting these holy writings, hard in some things to be understood, to their own destruction (when the People had now ceased to depend on the authoritative Exposition of their Spiritual Superiors; especially when they had also seen the King and his Vicar Cromwell, Laymen, to judge of the Judgements of the Clergy, and to reform their former Erments of the Clergy, and to reform their former Errors;) after this experience, I say, by Authority of the same Supremacy. 2. He commands again the Scriptures to be shut up and withdrawn from them, prohibiting, upon the Penalty of a Month's Imprisonment toties quoties, that any Woman, Husbandman, Artificer, Yeoman, Servingman, Apprentice, or Journy-man, Labourer &c, should read them to themselves, or to others, privately, or openly; See Stat. 34, 35. Hen. 8. 1. c. Because, saith the Preface of that Statute, his Highness perceived, that a great multitude of his Subjects, most especially of the lower sort, had so abused the Scriptures, that they had thereby grown and increased in divers naughty and erroneous Opinions, and, by occasion thereof, fallen into great divisions and dissensions among themselves. And if you shy, that the Opinions; the King calls here erroneous, were the Protestant Doctrines, discovered by the vulgar from the new light of the Scriptures; First you may see the very Opinions, as the Bishops collected them, in Fox p. 1136. &c unownable by any sober Christian. Secondly, We, who have had sad experience what monstrous opinions the vulgar; by wresting those farted Writings, have taken up in our days, may rationally allaw the same incident to former times. Of the same thing I find that King much complaining, in his Preface also to Necessary Doctrine, in this manner. Like as in the time of darkness and ignorance [so he calls the ages of the Church preceding his own] finding our People seduced from the Truth by Hypocrisy and Superstition, we by the help of God and his Word have traveled to purge and cleanse our Realm from the Enormities of the same; wherein; by opening God's Truth with publishing of the Scriptures, our labours have not been void and frustrate: So now we perceive, that in the time of knowledge [so he calls his own times] the Devil hath attempted to return again, into the House purged and cleansed, accompanied with seven worse Spirit; and Hypocrisy and Superstition being excluded, we find entered into some of our People's hearts an inclination to sinister understanding of Scripture, presumption, arrogancy, carnal liberty and contention; we be therefore constrained etc. And afterward, It must be agreed (saith he) that, for the instruction of those whose Office it is to teach, the reading and studying of Holy Scripture is necessary; but, for the other part ordained to be taught, it ought to be deemed certainly, that the reading of the Scripture is not so necessary for those Folks, that of duty they be bound to read it; but, as the Prince and Policy of the Realm shall think convenient, so to be tolerated, or taken from it. Consonant whereunto, the politic Law of our Realm hath now restrained it, etc. [Where note that he puts the just power of this toleration or restraint in the States, not in the Church-men's, Power.] Sec the like complaint made by him in his last Speech in Parliament, 1545, Lord Herb. p. 536. I am very sorry to know and hear, how irreverently that most precious Jewel the Word of God is disputed and jangled in every Alehouse and Tavern, contrary to the true meaning and doctrine of the same, I am sure that virtuous and godly living was never less used, nor God never less reverenced or honoured. Thus King Henry. And this, to show you, how and when this vulgar Theology first began; and how much then, so early, it was relented by the Magistrate. §. 108 By virtue of such a Supremacy these things that King did; some of them against the Canons not of Popes, but of the Church Catholic, and of Superior Councils: and as some of them with, (for he used the consent of his Convocation more than his Successor) so others of them without, the consent of his Clergy; whom (saith Lord Herb. p. 439.) he every day more and more devested of their former Authority. And, for the beginnings of his Reformation, Archbishop Parker in his Antiquit. Briton. p. 325. saith, that Cromwellus, cum Cranmero Archiepiscopo, tanquam in puppi sedit, clavumque Ecclesiae Anglicanae tenuit. Nam Praelatorum fides eo magis dubia & incerta Regi visa est; quod long â morâ & difficultate tanquam taedio abducti sint a Papa; sibique Supremi Capitis titulum detulissent. But whether these things done with or without his Clergy; yet the stile of his Injunctions sufficiently showeth, in what person the legislative power in Spiritual matters was then conceived to reside: these Injunctions running authoritatively, and for the submission of all men's judgements to them; either in his own name single, as the Church's Supreme Head; or in the name of his Vicegerent in Ecclesiastical Affairs, Cromwell (who therefore is ordered 31. Hen. 8.10. c. in regard of this Office (and all those who should succeed him therein) to sit in the Parliament-house above the Archbishop of Canterbury;) or in the name of the King and Parliament. The usual Phrase of the King and Parliament in such Decrees you have seen in former instances; where they do not ground these Decrees any further on the Authority of the Clergy, save only on their recognising of the King's Supremacy; upon which Supremacy all the rest are Superstructions. §. 103 Now hear the Style of his Vicegerent Cromwell, (upon whom, a Secular Person too and unlearned, that the King should derive his whole Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction and Authority, you may read, in Lord Herb. Hist. p. 402, what a wonderment it caused amongst many, as a thing in no other time or person to be parallelled; neither in the much pleaded Patterns of the Kings of Israel, nor in the former practice of Popes.) This Vicegerent thus prefaceth to the Injunctions that were published 1536. I Tho. Cromwell &c Vicegerent to our Sovereign Lord the King for and concerning all his Jurisdiction Ecclesiastical within this Realm, to the Glory of Almighty God, to the King's Highness' Honour, the public Weal of this Realm, and increase of Virtue in the same, have appointed and assigned these Injunctions ensuing to be kept and observed of the Dean, Parsons, Vicars &c, under the pains hereafter limited and appointed. And the like Expressions much what are observed in the Injunctions set forth in 1538, 〈◊〉 p. 1000 By the Authority and Commission of the most excellent Prince Henry, in Earth Supreme Head under Christ of the Church of England, I Tho. Cromwell Vicegerent &c, do, for the discharge of the King's Majesty, give and exhibit these Injunctions following to be kept and fulfilled etc. First, that ye shall truly observe all and singular the King's Highness' Injunctions given unto you heretofore in my name by his Grace's Authority etc. This is enough to show where the legislative Power for Spiritual matters rested in Henry the Eighth's days. After which Injunctions this is Mr. Fox's Epiphonema. By these Articles and Injunctions (saith he) thus coming forth one after another for the necessary Instruction of the People [but surely Mr. Fox had here forgot the Contents of the King's first Articles (which I mentioned before §. 80.) much contrary to the Reformed Doctrines, conformable to the Romish] it may appear, how well the King deserved then the Title of his Supreme Government given unto him over the Church of England [but to moderate Mr. Fox his Acclamations here; let me put him in mind, at another time, in his esteem, how ill he deserved it, remembering his words set down before § 84.] By the which Title and Authority he did more good for the redressing and advancing of Christ's Church and Religion here in England in those three years; than the Pope, the great Vicar of Christ, with all his Bishops and Prelates had done in the space of three hundred years before. CHAP. VIII. The Actings of Edward the Sixth in Ecclesiastical Affairs. THE Breach upon the Church's former Authority, Doctrines, §. 104 and Practices, being thus made by Henry the Eighth, 2. The Actings of K. Edward in Ecclesiastical Affairs. No marvel if by his Successors it was much enlarged. Next then to look into the actions of Edward the Sixth with relation to Church affairs. This Prince, being not yet ten years old when he came to the Crown, was chief directed and steered by Archbishop Cranmer; and by his Uncle the Duke of Somerset, who was made Protector of his Person and Realm, not by the will of Henry the Eighth, who dreaded to trust any one person with this Charge; but by the major part of those sixteen persons, to whom in common he committed the government of his Son and Kingdom. Of which Duke Mr. Fox saith p. 1180 and 1248, That he bore great favour to God's word; and that he brought with him, to the State of that his Dignity, his ancient love and zeal Of the Gospel and of Religion [he means, reform.] The proof whereof (saith he p. 1183.1184.) was sufficiently seen in his constant standing to God's truth, and zealous defence thereof against the Bishops of Chichester, Norwich, Lincoln, London, and others moe, in the consultation [about composing a new form of administering the Sacrament] had at Windsor in the first year of the King's Reign. So inclined was the Protector; and so inclined were many of the Council; § 105. n. 1. and some of those, who were otherwise, yet openly complied with the prevailing party for secular ends; and, amongst these, even Dudley the great Duke of Northumberland, the chief Agent in the later times of Edward; who confessed so much at his death: he then exhorting the people; See Stow An. 1553. Fox p. 1280. and Goodwin p. 278. That they should embrace the Religion of their Forefathers, rejecting that of later date, which had occasioned all the miseries of the forepast thirty years' [i. e. from the beginning of Henry the Eighth's Supremacy:] and that, for prevention for the future, they should expel those Trumpets of Sedition, the Preachers of the reformed Religion. [and declaring to them] That as for himself, whatsoever he had pretended, his Conscience was fraught with the Religion of his Fathers; but being blinded with ambition he had been contented to make wrack of his Conscience by temporising etc. Which calls to my mind likewise the death of Cromwell the great Agent for Reformation in Henry the Eighth's days; who (then) renounced the Doctrines in this time called Heresies; and took the people to witness, That he died in the Catholic Faith of the Holy Church, and doubted not in any Sacrament thereof [i. e. I suppose, as the Doctrine thereof was delivered in those times, to be seen in the Necessary Doctrine before mentioned] See Fox pag. 1086. comp. Lord Herbert p. 462. As for those of the Council who thus complied not, they were, after some time, expelled; as Bishop Tonstal, Wriothsley the Chancellor; and the Earl of Arundel, Goodwin p. 242. And as the King's chief Governors in the Council, so his Under Tutors, who had the nearest influence upon him, Dr. Cox and Sir John Cheek, were men much inclined to the Reformation: the one whereof in Queen Elizabeth's days Was made Bishop of Ely; the other, being imprisoned in Queen Mary's days, and upon it abjuring the reformed Religion, afterward (saith Goodwin pag. 287.) became so repentant for it; that out of extremity of grief he shortly languished, and died. Such were his nearest Governors. And the Complexion of his Parliament (for he had but one all his days continued by Prorogation from Session to Session, § 105. n. 2. till at last it ended in the death of the King) you may learn from Dr. Heylin (Hist. of Reform, p. 48.) The Parliament (saith he) consisted of such Members, as disagreed amongst themselves in respect of Religion; yet agreed well enough together in one common Principle; which was to serve the present time, and preserve themselves. For though a great part of the Nobility, and not a few of the chief Gentry in the House of Commons, were cordially affected to the Church of Rome: yet were they willing to give way to all such Acts and Statutes as were made against it; out of a fear of losing such Church-lands as they were possessed of, if that Religion should prevail and get up again. And for the rest, who either were to make or improve their fortunes; there is no question to be made, but that they came resolved to further such a Reformation, as should most visibly conduce to the advancement of their several ends. Thus he. As for the King's Supremacy how far now some of the complying Clergy extended or acknowledged the just power thereof, § 105. n. 3. even as to Ordination and Excommunication, and administering the Word and Sacraments, I think I cannot more readily show you, than by setting down the Queries proposed concerning these things (in the first year of this Kings, Reign) to Archbishop Cranmer, and other Bishops and Learned Men, when assembled at Windsor for establishing a public Order for Divine Service; and the Arch-Bishops answer to them (printed lately by Mr. Stilling fleet out of a Manuscript of this Archbishop. (Iren. 2. Par. 8 chap.) The first Query is, Whether the Apostles lacking a higher power, as in not having a Christian King among them, made Bishops by that necessity; or by authority given them of God? To which the Archbishop answers to the King, first in general; That all Christian Princes have committed unto them immediately of God the whole cure of all their Subjects, as well concerning the administration of God's word for the cure of Souls, as concerning the ministration of things Political; That the Ministers of God's word under his Majesty be die Bishops, Parsons, etc. That the said Ministers be appointed in every State by the Laws and Orders of Kings; That in the admission of many of these Officers be divers comely Ceremonies used; which be not of necessity, but only for a good order and seemly fashion That there is no more promise of God, that Grace is given in the committing the Ecclesiastical office; than it is in the committing the Civil. Then he answers more particularly, That in the Apostles time, when there was no Christian Princes, by whose authority Ministers of God's word might be appointed etc. Sometimes the Apostles and others, unto whom God had given abundantly the Spirit, sent or appointed Ministers of God's word; sometimes the people did choose such as they thought meet thereunto. And when appointed by the Apostles; the people of their own voluntary will did accept them, not for the Supremity, Empery or Dominion, that the Apostles had over them to command as their Princes or Masters; but as good people ready to obey the advice of good Councillors. A second Query is, Whether Bishops, or Priests, were first? And if the Priests were first; whether then the Priest made the Bishop? He answers, That Bishops and Priests were at one time; and were not two things, but both one office in the beginning of Christ's Religion. The third Query. Whether a Bishop hath authority, to make a Priest, by the Scriptures, or no? And whether any other [i.e. Secular person] but only a Bishop may make a Priest? He answers. A Bishop may make a Priest by the Scriptures; and so may Princes and Governors also, and that by authority of God committed unto them; and the people also by their Election. The fourth Query. Whether in the New Testament be required any Consecration of a Bishop and Priest; or only appointing to the office be sufficient? Answer. In the New Testament he that is appointed to be a Bishop or a Priest needeth no Consecration by the Scripture; for election or appointing thereto is sufficient. The fifth Query. Whether (if it fortuned a Prince Christian learned to conquer certain dominions of Infidels, having none but temporal learned men with him) it be defended by God's Law, That he and they should preach and teach the Word of God there, or no? And also make and constitute Priests, or no? [In the next Query, which I omit for brevity sake, is mentioned also the ministering Baptism and other Sacraments.] He answers to this and the next, That it is not against God's Law: but (contrary) they ought indeed so to do. The seventh Query. Whether a Bishop or a Priest may excommunicate; and for what Crimes? And whether they, only, may excommunicate, by God's law? He answers, A Bishop or a Priest, by the Scriptures, is neither commanded nor forbidden to excommunicate. But where the Laws of any Region giveth him authority to excommunicate; there they ought to use the same in such crimes, as the laws have such authority in: And where the laws of the Region forbiddeth them; there they have none authority at all; and they, that be no Priests, may also excommunicate, if the law allow thereunto. Thus the Archbishop explains the Kings and Clergies power and right, concluding, That he doth not temerariously define this his opinion and sentence; but remits the Judgement thereof wholly to his Majesty. This Text needs no Comment; it is plain enough: and perhaps posterity might have done better to have covered this nakedness of their Forefather; then to have published it after so long a silence. §. 106 Set down. Now to proceed. 1. First more generally. It putting forth certain Injunctions and Doctrinal Honilies; sending Commissioners thro' the Realm and ejecting the refractory Clergy etc. Thus this young Prince armed in such a sense with the Title of Supreme in Church-affairs, and directed by such a Council, did set forth from time to time (nothing being deferred herein by reason of his nonage, though this much sued-for by some Bishops,) Injunctions concerning Religion; and many of them in matters of faith; and these contrary to the determinations and decrees of former obliging Councils. Set them forth, sometimes with the sole authority of this Council; sometimes also with that of his Parliament, without any precedent consultation with, or consent of, I say not some particular Bishops, or Divines (most of them known to be of the same inclinations with the Council, as chief Cranmer and Ridley; to whom I may add Latimer, Hooper, Rogers, Coverdale,) but of any Ecclesiastical Synod of his Clergy (the Act of which only hath force in such matters) and usually without the precedent consent of other Bishops very considerable for their learning or place; as Gardiner Bishop of Winchester, Bonner Bishop of London; Tonstal Bishop of Durham, and one of the chosen Governors of the Kingdom; Heath Bishop of Worcester, and others. And he imposed the same Injunctions so set forth upon the Bishops also and the rest of the Clergy; to be submitted to by them, as being the Orders of their Supreme Head in Spirituals, upon penalty of suspension, imprisonment, deprivation. §. 107 Of which actings of the King and State, before we descend to particulars, hear what Mr. Fox saith in great applause of them, p. 1180; where after having told us, That the Protector had restored the holy Scriptures to the Mother-Tongue, had extinguished and abolished Masses, and the Six Articles; After softer beginnings (saith he) by little and little greater things followed in the Reformation of the Churches; such as before were in banishment for the danger of the truth, were again received in their Country [to supply voided places:] and to be short (saith he) a new face of things began now to appear, as it were on a Stage, new Players coming in [what needed this, if the old consented to the King's Mandates?] the old being thrust out. [therefore the consent of Clergy, so much urged in the later end of this King's Reign, will be that of the new.] For the most part the Bishops of Churches and Dioceses were changed. Such as had been dumb Prelates before, were compelled to give place to other then, that would preach and take pains .. Besides; others also out of Foreign Countries [which argues scarcity at home of these Clergy, who would second the King's Reformation] men of learning and notable knowledge were sent for and received; among whom was Peter Martyr, Martin Bucer, and Paulus Phagius [he might have added to them Bernardinus Ochinus (but that this man would do him no credit) who, we read in Coodwin, p. 281. was packed away again with Peter Martyr in the beginning of Queen Mary 's Reign; and three of these, Martyr, Bucer, and Ochinus, were Friars, forsaking the Cloister, and marrying Wives; after solemn Vows to the contrary.] Of whom (saith he) the first taught at Oxford; the other two professed at Cambridge, [sure this was so appointed, not because the Universities here at that time were not held so learned, but because not accounted so orthodox; as appeared shortly after in the beginnings of Queen Mary, notwithstanding Martyrs and Bucers Lectures there.] He addeth; And that with no small commendation of the whole University [and I put in, not without opposition of many learned men there, disputing ex animo before the King's Visitors against them and their Tenants; as you may see in the solemn disputations had in Cambridge, Fox. p. 1250. etc. Where I would recommend to your reading, when at leisure, the rational arguings, and Apologies for the Church's Doctrines, of Dr. Glyn, and Mr. Langdale, and others, Members of the University of Cambridge, against this reforming party, and against the interlocutions of Bishop Ridley one of the Visitors. As for the Oxford Oppositions, Mr. Fox hath not communicated them. There is extant P. Martyrs relation of them, Fox p. 1255. perhaps not the most impartial; yet wherein you may find in his Opponents, Tresham, Chadsey, and Morgan, much learning, reverence to the Church, and zeal in their cause; and (as we may gather from his Preface) a conceived victory; of whom there he saith, Omnes anguli, plateae, domus, officinae, & aenopolia adhuc eorum mentitos triumphos de me & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 resonant. By which you may guests, how the University of Oxford then stood affected. Mr. Fox proceeds;] Of the old Bishops some were committed to one ward, some to another. Bonner's Bishop of London was committed to the Marshal see, Gardener Bishop of Winchester, with Jonstal Bishop of Duresme, was cast into the Tower. [to whom may be added, ●ox p. 1280. as appears out of Fox elsewhere, Day removed from Chicester, Heath from Worcester, Vesy from Excester; Likewise Pate Bishop of Rochester, Goldwel Bishop of St. Asaph,— Bishop elect of Bangor, are said to have been banished. And some more might be removed in like manner; who happen not to be mentioned, because deceased before the Reign of Queen Mary; as Wakeman Bishop of Gloucester, Holbeck Bishop of Lincoln, Skyp Bishop of Hereford, Rugg Bishop of Norwich; as may be probably conjectured from Mr. Fox his expressions but now rehearsed.] §. 108 After this Mr. Fox goeth on to describe, what course the King and that his Council took in the very beginnings of their power, before any Parliament of Synod yet assembled, to effect a Reformation in the Church. The King (saith he) following the good Example of King Josias determined forthwith to enter into some Reformation of Religion in the Church of England. Whereupon intending first a general Visitation over all the Bishoprics (thereby as well to understand, as also to redress the abuses of the same) the chose out certain wife, learned, discreet, and worshipful persons, to be his Commissioners in that behalf; and so, dividing them into several companies, assigned into them several Dioceses to be visited: Appointing likewise unto every company one or two godly learned Preachers [by which it seems the Commissioners were Laics; unless we say they appointed some godly Preachers to assist the Divines; see the names of those for the Diocese of London, Fox p. 1192.] which Preachers at every Session should instruct the people in the true Doctrine of the Gospel; and dehort them from their old Superstition and Idolatry. And that they might be more orderly directed in this their Commission, there were delivered unto them certain Injuctions and Ecclesiastical Orders, drawn up by the King's learned Council; the which they should command, in his Majesty's behalf, to be thenceforth observed of every person, to whom they did appertain, within their sundry Circuits. [These Injuctions (as we find in the King's Preface to them) are directed to both Clergy and Laity, for the suppression of Idolatry and Superstition; and the extirpation of enormities and abuses; by the King supreme authority assisted by the advice of his most dear Uncle the Duke of Somerset, and the esidue of his most honourable Council.] And of the same universal Visitation made by the King's appointment thus speak the Antiquit. Britann. p. Paulo post omnes Papales caremoniae, Missationes, Exequiae, Sanctorum invocationes, mortuorum expiationes, precationumque formulae è templis & christianorum caetu sublatae atque deletae sunt. Ad hanc rem a Rege visitatio totius regni generalis decernitur: datique cum amplissimis mandatis certi Visitatores, qui singulas Dioceses lustrarent. And in this Visitation, beside the general Injunctions for the whole estate of the Realm (saith Mr. Fox Ibid.) there were shops only; which were by the Commissioners committed to the said Bishops, with charge to be inviolably observed upon pain of the King's Majesty's displeasure. First: That they should see and cause all the King's Injunctions, theretofore given, or after to be given, from time to time, thro' their Diocese faithfully to be observed.— Moreover; that they should not at any time or place preach or set forth unto the people any Doctrine contrary to the effect and intent set forth in the King's Highness' Homilies [which Homilies are the stating of several Doctrinals in Religion] neither yet should give Licence to preach to any, but to such, as they should know for at least assuredly trust) would do the same: of whom if any offended herein, that they should inhibit and punish him; and revoke their Licence. §. 109 Thus much at large out of Mr. Fox, touching the first proceed of the King and his Council in the Reformation, In the prohibition of Preaching till he had settled Religion. before the calling of any Parliament or Synod. But to prosecute this matter a little further: after the enjoining the Doctrine of the Homilies and other matters, the King finding much reluctance and opposition to them in many also of this Ministry licenced by their Ordinaries, or rather in the Ordinaries also themselves, He, in the beginning of the second year of his Reign, by his Proclamation February the Sixth, inhibited any to preach, except he were licenced under the Seal, either of the Lord Protector, or of Cranmer, Archbishop of Canterbury. About this time he restrained likewise the Bishops themselves, thought too actively busy in several places of their Dioceses, [how doth this agree with Mr. Fox his dumb Prelates? See before §. 107.] to preach only in their own Cathedrals; a thing (saith Winchester writing to the Protector) the like whereof hath not been known in any time. Fox p. 1224 Some seven Months after, neither finding those licenced by the Protector and Archbishop of Canterbury conformable to the Doctrines prescribed, By a Proclamation put forth Sept. 23, he inhibited the whole Clergy thro' the Kingdom, as well (saith the Proclamation) the said Preachers before licenced, as all others, whosoever they be, to preach in open audience, in the Pulpit or otherwise: [the reason there given] because those licenced had abused the said authority of Preaching; and had behaved themselves irreverently and without good order in the said preaching; contrary to such good instructions as were given unto them: [the time of silence there prescribed] because that his Majesty minded to see very shortly one uniform order throughout this his Realm, and to put an end to all Controversies in Religion; for which cause at that time certain Bishops and notable learned men by his Highness' command were congregated; therefore he inhibited them, until the said order shall be set forth [which should show them what Doctrine they were to preach, §. 110 The defence made by the Protestant Divines concerning K. Edw. Proceed in matters of Religion. composed by some such Bishops and other Learned, as were elected to this by the Prince] See the Proclamation in Fuller p. 388. Lib. 7. And thus much of the first beginnings and manner of King Edward the Sixth's Reformation. In defence of which I find these things said by Dr, Fern, (Consider. of Reform. 2. c. 9 § etc.) Dr. Hammond, (Schism 7, c. 14. §) and other. 1. That these Injunctions (and the like) of the King and Council were not set forth, α but by the advice and consent of the Metropolitan, the Archbishop of Canterbury (to the authority of which Metropolitant much is to be attributed. See Cart. Apost. 34. and Concil. Nicaen. 4. c. ) and of β other Bishops and learned men first consulted with. 2. That γ these Injunctions were not set forth, as a Body of Doctrine; which was an Act of the Synod held in the fifth year of King Edward's Reign: but were Provisional only, for the public exercise of Religion and Worship; δ which was necessary to be provided for in present. Dr. Fern p. 74, 75. 3. ζ That they extended only to some evident points, the abolishing of Image-worship, the restoring of the Liturgy in a known Tongue, and Communion in both kinds, and the abolishing of Romish Masses; (ε in which things was the main of King Edward's Reformation, p. 71;) ζ and that in them the King restored only what was established and used in the ancient Church. viz. Divine Service in a known tongue; Communion in both kinds; without Image-worship, p. 76. 4. η That the King's Injunctions were generally received and put in practice by the Bishops in their several Dioceses; as is avouched expressly in the charge given in against Gardiner Bishop of Winchester, p. 77. Fox p. 1219: where it is said; ' That they were of all men of all sorts obediently received and reverently observed and executed, save only of the Bishop of Winchester. θ At least, that the King's Injunctions were consented and submitted to by the much major part of Bishops; the Bishops imprisoned or ejected being a much smaller number compared with the rest. Dr. Hammond, p. 147. κ And then, that it can make no real difference, whether the Reformation begin from a vote of Bishops in Synod, and so proceeding to the Prince be by him received and established; or take beginning from the Piety of the Prince, moved by advice of faithful Bishops, and so proceeding to the whole body of the Clergy be by them generally received, and put in practice, according to the command of the Sovereign authority. Dr. Fern, p. 80.79. 5. μ That, at least in, the fifth, year of King Edward, it must be granted, that an Ecclesiastical Synod acknowledged the truth and lawfulness of the former Injunctions, constituting the same things in a body of forty two Articles of Religion: which Articles were shortly after published by the King's authority with this Title prefixed. Articuli de quibus in Synodo London: An. 1552. ad tollendam opinionum dissensionem, & consensum verae religionis firmandum, inter Episcopos & alios eruditos viros convenerat, Regia authoritate editi. In the thirty sixth of which Articles is also ratified the second corrected Form of Common-Prayer, and the new Form of Ordination in these words: Liber, qui nuperrimè authoritate Regis & Parliamenti Ecclesiae Anglicanae traditus est, continens modum & formam orandi, & Sacramenta administrandi in Ecclesiâ Anglicanâ similiter & libellus eâdem authoritate editus de Ordinatione Ministrorum Ecclesiae, quoad doctrinae veritatem pii sunt, etc. Atque ideo ab omnibus Ecclesiae Anglicanae fidelibus membris, & maxim a Ministris verbi, cum omni promptitudine animorum & gratiarum actione accipiendi, approbandi, & posteritati commendandi sunt. λ λ And also for the first new Form of Common-Prayer, and Administration of the Sacraments, it must be granted, that, in the second year, and second Parliament of the King's Reign, the whole body of the Clergy in Convocation gave their approbation and consent thereto: as appears both, by the King's message to the Rebels of Cornwall; where it is said, That whatever was contained in the new Common-Prayer-Book etc. was by Parliament established, by the whole Clergy agreed, by the Bishops of the Realm devised; Fox p. 1189: and by the Letter of the King and his Council to Bishop Bonner; where it is said yet more fully; That, after great and serious debating and long conference of the Bishops and other grave and well learned men in the holy Scriptures, one uniform Order of Common-Prayer and Administration of Sacraments hath been and is most Godly set forth, not only by the full assent of the Nobility and Commons of the late Parliament; but also by the like assent of the Bishops in the same Parliament, and of all other the learned men of this our Realm, in their Synods and Convocations Provincial. Fox p. 1186. And see much-what the same said in the Answer to the Lady Mary's Letter. Fox p. 1212. 6. ν That, such consent and such Constitutions of the Clergy of this Realm being not to be denied, at least it will follow: that the Reformation, as touching the Common-Prayer-Book, from the second year of his Reign, and, as touching the other Articles of Religion, from the fifth, was regular and canonical; as being the act of the Clergy. §. 111 Thus have I here put you together the ordinary defence (excepting the ultimum refugium; The Reply thereto. That Princes may reform in matters of Religion and of Faith, without and against the major part of their Clergy; of which hereafter) which is made for the regularity of Edward the Sixth's Reformation. To which now consider with me, what, it seemeth, may reasonably be replied: though some things cannot be so fully cleared, till I have given you the rest of the Narration of this King's Proceed; to which therefore I must refer you for them. Reply to α To α than I answer, That the Archbishop acted not, in the setting forth of these Injunctions, as the Metropolitan; but as one of the Sixteen Councillors whom Henry the Eighth nominated for the Government of his Son; and in the same manner as he would have acted had he been Bishop of Asaph or Bangor. Neither are the Injunctions grounded at all upon the Metropolitan's assent, but on the King's Supremacy; nor do they make any mention of him or his authority, but only of the Council in general, and of their advice; as you may see in what is before related §. 108. Neither were those Canons, being of humane constitution only, conceived, either by King, Council, or this Archbishop, to be of any force under this Regal Supremacy, But secondly, Suppose them in force, and these Injunctions published by the Metropolitan's authority, yet is not such authority made valid in such things, when single, without the concurrence of his Bishops, by any such Canon. For the very same Canon that saith, Nihil praeter Metropolitani conscientiam gerant Episcopi etc. saith also, Nec ille praeter omnium conscientiam faciat aliquid in eorum Paraeciis; Sic enim unanimitas erit. See Can. Apost. 35. Thirdly, lastly: every thing set forth by the advice of this Council is not necessarily so by the Arch-Bishops advice or vote, because he is one of the Council: For here the vote of the major part (who were all Laymen save himself, and one Dr. Wotton: if Bishop Tonstal's vote was cast out) though it were contrary to his vote, bears the name of the whole. §. 112 To β. To β. That the advice of many Bishops was used in many of the King's Injunctions (unless in that, touching the new Form of Common-Prayer) is not evident: that the advice of some Bishops was used in all, is credible; but those, such as were presumed to be of the same inclinations with the King and Council (as whatsoever colour the State is of, it cannot want some Clergy of the same complexion.) For Example; Cranmer and Ridley now called to consutation, but Gardiner, Tonstal, Bonner, Heath, etc. shut out; and in Queen Mary's days, contra. That the advice of many Bishops used is not sufficient for to impose Laws on the rest, where all have a decisive vote; and, where the legislative power lies in the major part, viz. in a Synod, to prevent Innovations by such Prelates, as are singular in their opinions. §. 113 To γ. That King Edward claimed by his Supremacy, according to the power, which, To γ. as I have showed above §. 39 etc. was judged then to belong to it, the giving of Laws to his Clergy, not only for rectifying their practice, but Doctrines (only using the assistance of such Divines, or other learned men, as he thought fit to single out for this purpose) as you may see, In his prescribing the Doctrine of the Homilies unto them; and also, Before §. 108. In his enjoining them, that, whatsoever else should come from him, they should see, and cause, it faithfully to be observed: In his silencing the Ministry, till something were drawn up by certain Bishops and other learned men congregated by his authority, that should put an end to all controversies in Religion: before §. 109: In the stile of his Proclamation before the order of the Communion; where he saith: We would not have our Subjects so much to mislike our judgement; as though we could not discern what was to be done etc. God be praised, we know both what by his word is meet to be redressed, and have an earnest mind by the advice [of whom?] of our most dear Uncle, and other of our privy Council, with all diligence to set forth the same: and In the last. Articles to the Bishop of Winchester (drawn up (saith the King's Diary) by Bishop Ridley, Pull●r 8. l. and Secretary Sir W. peter's) which required his Subscription to several points of Doctrine, mentioned above: before §. 45. §. 114 To δ. To δ. That if there was then a present necessity of providing for the public exercise of Religion and Worship; so, this being a matter of the greatest moment, there was also a necessity, that the judgement of the National Synod, and not only of the King's private Council should be had therein: lest, by remedying such things hastily, they should be remedied amiss. 1. That it is most probable, had the Clergy been generally consulted-with herein, they would have discovered no such necessity: because the same Clergy, but a year ago, in Henry the Eighth's time, at least for a major part of them, saw no necessity of charging the Church's Service; as appeareth in the first, second, fifth, sixth of the Six Articles, ratified as by the King, so by Synod. And this their judgement not likely to be mistaken, because the judgement of the whole Catholic Church for near a 1000 years had been the same; using the same public exercise of Worship, which King Edward found in this Church of England, See Church Govern. 4. Part: and therefore some of King Edward's Bishops saw a necessity of leaving their Bishoprics, rather than to admit any change thereof. §. 115 To ε. That the sew things here mentioned are not the only considerable things that passed in King Edward's Reformation, To ε. as will be seen by and by; and as is manifest in Queen Elizabeth's and the modern Reformation, which our Writers contend scarce in any thing to differ from King Edward's. But, if it be meant, that those matters were the main of his Reformation in the beginning of his Reign, the Doctrines of the Homilies then also imposed contradict this; and the Articles to Winchester: before §. 108. But now to come to what is said of the points here mentioned. §. 116 To ζ. 1. That first, where a pretention is, that the things by the King enjoined are things evident; ζ. and established in the ancient Church; the Clergy also aught to be Judge of this (especially when the contrary was said in King Henry's days) whether evident, whether primitive: because to judge whether primitive requires much learning; and is indeed the chief means, by which Controversies are decided; namely this, the examining how former Church hath interpreted the Scriptures; which Scriptures all sides draw to their own sense. §. 117 But secondly it is denied, 2. that all the Reformation made in the public Service was established in the ancient Church; and affirmed, that the Reformation proceeded also further in these points, than is here mentioned. Thus much is granted (to remove here that ambiguity and deceit which lies in Universals;) That Images, and so the veneration or worship of them, were very seldom (if at all) used in the Christian Church for some of the first Centuries. That the public Communion was, then, most commonly, if not always, administered in both kinds unto the people. That the Divine Service, which then, as now, was celebrated usually in the Latin, or Greek, Tongue, was much better, in those days, than now, understood of the common people. Likewise it is granted, That the having the Liturgy, or Divine Service, or the Holy Scriprures, in a known tongue is not prohibited; nor the using of Images enjoined; nor the Priest's administering and the People's receiving the Communion in both kinds, if the Supreme Church Governors so think fit, declared unlawful, by any Canon of any Council. §. 118 But the Reformation of King Edward in these things went further. For it translated not simply the former Divine Service into a known Tongue (a thing which might easily have been done, for Mr. Fox himself hath done so much, see p. 1272. in the beginning of Queen Mary's Reign, to expose it to laughter and lay open its Errors and Superstitions;) but changed and altered it (of which is made no mention in ζ) taking away the Sacrifice of the Mass, See Stat. 1. Edw. 6.14. c. A●d Articles sent to Winchester. and declaring such thing unbeneficial and vain either pro vivis or defunctis; Contrary to the tenant and practice of the Primitive Church, which in such sense offered it, as is showed elsewhere in the discourse of the Eucharist, and in Chur. Govern. 4. Part; and Contrary to the declared judgement of the English Clergy but a few years before; as appears in the fifth of the Six Articles: and declared likewise the Mass-book to have many Superstitions in it, and to be full of abuses; contrary to the long approbation of the whole Church Catholic in the public use thereof from age to age without any considerable difference. Again; his Reformation held no consideration sufficient to deny the Cup to the Communicants; contrary not only to the definition of a former Superior Council, that of Constance, and the declared opinion of the English Clergy, in the second of the Six Articles; but contrary to the tenant and practice of the Primitive times, who sometimes in private Communions administered it only in one kind; as is showed in the discourse of Communion in one kind. It took away all private Masses, as holding it unlawful for the Priest to celebrate and communicate alone; contrary to the ancient practice of the quotidian Christian Sacrifice, (whether any of the people communicating, or no,) offered unto God for the impetration of his mercies upon the Church: and contrary to the declared judgement of the English Clergy in the fifth of the Six Articles. In which single communicating of the Priest (casually happening) if there be any fault made, it is to be laid not on the Priest's performance of this daily Service, but on the people's indevotion and neglect to accompany him in that holy Banquet. Whereas the Church that useth such private Masles, wisheth, that the Priest might never communicate alone, but if this sometimes happen, which is not the Priest's fault, the Church doth not therefore command this Sacrifice of the Eucharist to be omitted: quod Sacrificium a publico Ecclesiae ministro non pro se tantum, sed pro omnibus fidelibus, qui ad Christi corpus pertinent, celebratur. See Conc. Trid. 22. Sess. 6. cap. This loss is a worse thing than the other indecency. Lastly, It held the veneration of Images or Saints Relics unlawful: contrary to the definition of a former General Council, the second Nicene; which Council also justifies it by Antiquity. Now King Edward's Reformation proceeeding thus far, you see, interests itself not only in matter of Practice, but Doctrine. And indeed there could be no such necessity pretended of reforming the public Service in such a manner, had they not judged the former frame thereof to be grounded on some erroneous opinions. But, had the Reformation only translated the former Church Liturgies and Scriptures into a known Tongue; administered Communion in both kinds; thought fit not to use Images; changed something of practice only without any decession from the Church's Doctrines: 'tis probable, the Church-Governors would have been facile to licence these, where they could be secure of no breach in greater, matters. §. 119 To η. Where concerning the Clergy's concurrence and consent to the King's Reformations. To η. That the words urged out of the charge against Winchester prove not the Clergy's reception of, or submission to, all the King's Injunctions touching the Reformation; but only to the first Injunctions. That whether they be extended to the first, or to all, they must be understood in some such sense, as this; That at that time, when this charge against Winchester was drawn, there were as yet none other known to the Council that did by open Protestation and Letters (as it follows in that charge) show a wilful disobedience thereto etc. Or else the verity of them will not consist with the story of those times; which often signify a great opposition and averseness, in many of the Clergy besides Winchester, to the Kings proceed in the alteration of Religion; so far as that many were silenced, suspended, imprisoned, ejected out of their Spiritual Preferments for this cause. §. 120 For evidencing which; see first in Fox p. 1192. Bishop Bonner's protestation concerning these first Injunctions and Homilies, when they were tendered unto him by the Commissioners; which protestation was so far from being interpreted an obedient reception or reverend observance of them; that for it he was sent to the Fleet. And what was done by Gardiner and Bonner leading Bishops, that it was done also by many others, I pray you review Mr. Fox's words before recited § 107 That for the most part the Bishops of Churches and Dioceses were changed [which you may compare with what is said before (§. 107.) of the many new Bishops made by King Edward] That Learned Men were sent for out of foreign Countries; surely not because the Leaders of the Universities were not so well studied (see their Disputations) but because not so conformable to the new prescriptions. That of the old Bishops some were committed to one ward, some to another: where he names Bonner, Gardiner, Tonstal; but might have mentioned also Heath, Day, Vesy, that we know of. And to the same purpose much-what speaketh Godwin p. 223. A. D. 1548; who after having commended Day and Tonstal for very learned Pre lates, saith, That the drift of the punishments of such men, when in Henry's time they were accounted the chief Lights of our Church, he conceives to have been, that the rest of that Order might by their Example be admonished, without dissimulation, either to resign their Bishoprics to others that were thought [by the present times] more worthy; or be induced [by this terror] to conform themselves to the present Reformation of the Church, according to the prescript of the Laws in that behalf lately enacted [i. e, by Parliament.] Thus he. But that the imprisonment of these or of some other Clergy, as also that the dissent of many others to the King's Injunctions, who were not as yet imprisoned for it, preceded the confirmation of these Injunctions by any Act of Parliament or Convocation, appears from the very Act itself. 2. Edw. 6.1. c. Where the Parliament desires of the King, That all persons that have offended in the Premises [i. e, in refusing the Form of Common-Prayer, or at least of the Mass, Fox p. 1184 imposed by the King before this Act] other, than such person or persons as now be and remain (saith the Act) in the ward of the Tower of London, or in the Fleet, may be pardoned thereof. Some Clergy therefore were imprisoned for this cause before this Act: and more also had offended in this matter, than those who were imprisoned; whose pardon here was begged by the Parliament. §. 121 Which reluctance of the Clergy may be seen also in what Mr. Fox relateth p. 1184; who, after he hath first told us, how a new Form of Communion was agreed on by certain learned men appointed by the King (which Form, you must know, was not allowed, or seen, by the first Parliament of King Edward; which Parliament appointed Communion in both kinds indeed; but this might have been observed without altering or adding one Syllable to the Mass) and enjoined by the Council to be duly executed both by the Bishops and their subordinate Clergy, thus complains; Nevertheless (saith he) as at no time any thing can be so well done of the godly, but that the wicked will find some means to deface the same: so likewise at this present, thro' the perverse obstinacy and dissembling frowardness of many inferior Priests and Ministers of Cathedral and other Churches of this Realm, there did arise a marvellous Schism and variety of fashions in celebrating the Common Service, and administration of the Sacraments, and other Rites and Ceremonies of the Church. For some zealously allowing the Kings proceed, did gladly follow the order thereof; and others, though not so willingly admitting them, did yet dissemblingly and patchingly use some part of them: but many carelessly contemning all would still exercise their old wont Popery [i. e, in other language, would still retain the former solemn Church Service.] Thus Herald Now this variety of fashions only mentioned by Fox if you desire more particularly to know; we find a more punctual relation thereof in Parsons 3. Convers. of England, 2. Part, 12. Chapter. What a Babylonical confusion (saith he) in the two first years of the King's Reign ensued upon these innovations in all Churches, is wonderful to recount. For some Priests said the Latin Mass; some the English Communion; some both; some neither; some half of the one, half of the other. This was very ordinary, to say the Introitus & Confiteor in English; and then the Collects, and some other parts in Latin: after that again, the Epistles and Gospels in English, and then the Canon of the Mass in Latin; and lastly the Benediction and last Gospel in English. But that which was of more importance and impiety; some did consecrate Bread and Wine, others did not: but would tell the people beforehand, That they would not consecrate, but restore them their Bread and Wine back again, as they received it from them; only adding to it the Church's benediction. And those, that did consecrate, did consecrate in divers forms; some aloud, some in secret; some in one form of words, some in another. And, after Consecration, some held up the Host to be adored after the old fashion, and some did not; and, of those that were present, some did kneel down and adore, others did shut their eyes, others turn away their faces, others run out of the Church crving Idolatry. Hitherto Parsons. View also Dr. Heylin's Hist. of Reform. p. 63.74. concerning th' matter. Whereby we see how averse and unsatisfied divers of the Clergy were with the King's alterations. §. 122 And this not only before his new Liturgy is said to be confirmed by Act of Parliament and Convocation; but after also. For afterward we find the King and his Council, in their Letter to the Bishop of London, Fox p. 1186. complaining: That it was no small occasion of sorrow unto them to understand by the complaints of many that the said Book; so much traveled for, remaineth in many places of the Realm, either not known at all, or not used; or if used, very seldom; and that in such a light and irreverent sort, that etc. The fault whereof [say they to the Bishop] we must of reason impute to you, and others of your vocation. And thus Fox in the same Page. What zealous care was in this young King concerning Reformation by these Injunctions it may tied well appear. Whereby we have to note not so much the careful diligence of the King and his learned Council, as the lingering slackness and drawing back on the other side of divers, but especially of Bishops, and old Popish Curates [he meaneth the Clergy, such as had not been changed by King Edward:] by whose cloaked contempt, wilful winking, and stubborn disobedience the Book of Common Prayer was, long after the publishing thereof, either not known at all; or else very irreverently used throughout many places of the Realm. And the same thing may be collected from the many Rise in several Counties, that were in King Edward's days, chief for matter of Religion. First in Somerset-Shire and Lincolnshire; then in Essex, Kent, Suffolk, Norfolk, Cornwall, and Devon-shire; and afterward also in York shire. Which Rise of the Laity in such numbers for their former way of Religion would not have been, had not their Clergy justified it unto them. § 123 To these give me leave to add yet further the testimony of Bishop Ridley, one who knew well the pulse of those times, in his Treatise, lamenting the State of England, apud Fox p. 1616. Even of the greatest Magistrates (saith he) some spurned privily; and would not spare to speak evil of those Preachers, who went about most wholsomely to cure their sore backs. As for the common fort of other inferior Magistrates, as Judges &c, it may be truly said of them, as of the most part of the Clergy, Parsons, Prebendaries, Arch-Deacons, Deans, yea and I may say of Bishops also; I fear me, for the most part (although I doubt not, but God had, and hath ever whom he in every state knoweth to be his) but for the most part, I say, they were never persuaded in their hearts, but from the teeth forward, and for the King's sake, in the truth of God's word [i. e. in the Protestant tenants;] and yet all these did dissemble [he meaneth many, for of all it is not true. See before §. 107.] and bear a Copy of a countenance, as if they had been sound within. Hitherto Bishop Ridley. Where note; that some outward compliance, at the first, of those Bishops, who made an open opposition afterward, might be upon a fair pretence; because the first Acts of the Reformation might be not so unsupportable, as the later: for the Reformation wound and insinuated itself into the common practice by certain gentle degrees; the greatest blow to the former doctrine and discipline of the Church being given in the later times of this King's Reign, when it was now by some success grown more bold and confident. But however it be; such compliance, used for a while, but after ward renounced, does avail nothing the Protestant cause: since the later judgement in such matters is to be taken; especially where it is no way corrupted by, but proceedeth against, secular advantages. Again; the perpetual outward compliance of some other Bishops contrarily affected, since there preceded before it penalties, and fears, and the seeing of the prime Bishops to be imprisoned and ejected for standing our, is far from an authentical consent, and unjustly reckoned as such. For though none can know men's hearts but by their outward appearance; yet where men's votes are asked after penalties, imprisonments of others, threats &c. which are so strong motives of dissimulation: now all that conform in these, are to be presumed compilers; and none free voters. §. 124 This testimony of Bishop Ridley's I will second with Mr. Fuller's Chur. Hist. 7. l. p. 414. We find (saith he) the Bishops [of that time] divided into three sorts, zealous Protestants, Cranmer, Ridley, Hooper, Farrer, etc. [but these named were made Bishops, or consecrated (as Ridley) in King Edward 's time, all save Cranmer]: ' Zealous Papists, Bonner, Gardiner, Tonstal [he might have named so many of the rest, as were then ejected for their Religion; Voicy, Heath, Day]: Papists in their hearts, but outwardly conforming to the Kings [Ecclesiastical] Laws; as Heath then Bishop of Worcester [yet Heath was ejected] and many other Bishops [amongst whom, elsewhere he numbereth, S. l. p. 11. Samson Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield, (of whom Godwin in Catalogue of Bishops saith; That he began to show himself a Papist in the second year of King Edward, and was put out of the Presidentship of Wales.) Capon Bishop of Salisbury, Thirlby Bishop of Norwich, Buckly Bishop of Bangor; add Parfew Bishop of Asaph, Kitchen Bishop of Landaff, Aldrich Bishop of Carlisle, Goodrig Bishop of Ely, Chambers Bishop of Peterborough, King Bishop of Oxford; who all returned to the profession of the old Religion in Queen Mary's days. Some of these forenamed flinging up a good part of their lands to keep their ground, and complying with the Kings commands so coldly and with such reluctancy, as laid them open to the spoil, though not to the loss, of their Bishoprics, as Dr. Heylin relates it in Hist. of Reform. p. 100] And here it is worthy of enquiry (saith Fuller) why this later sort, which so complied under King Edward, should be so stubborn and obstinate under Queen Elizabeth: whereof I can give but this reason assigned; that growing old and near their graves they grew more conscientious and faithful to their own (though erroneous) Principles. Thus he. I add; to the open maintaining of which Principles, their long experience, having seen the arbitrary and floating state of Religion under a secular Supremacy, in their old age excited them. §. 125 Lastly, for the inferior Clergy, though many of them doubtless were changed in King Edward's days: yet so many of them then remained still of the old Religion, either in heart, or also in profession, that a Synod being called within five or six days after Queen Mary's Coronation, before any new moulding of this Ecclesiastical body, all of them, except six, voted against King Edward's Reformation: See before §. 51. To which may be added the zeal and forwardness of the Clergy and People at the same time preventing the Queen's Edicts, in erecting again the Altars, and using the Mass and Latin Service &c. (of which see Heylin Hist. Q. Marry, p. 24.) All which could not have happened so soon after King Edward's death, if during his life they had all so really and unanimously received and observed it. Which Reformation also the Lady Mary, in her Letter to the Council, who blamed her for inconformity to the King's laws, intimates; that it was not done without partiality, nor consented unto without compulsion. See Fox p. 1212. I have offended no law (saith she) unless it be a late law of your own making, for the altering matters of Religion: which is not worthy to have the name of a Law; both for &c, and for the partiality used in the same. But I am well assured, that the King his Father's Laws were all allowed and consented to, without compulsion, by the whole Realm, both Spiritual and Temporal etc. Thus the Lady Mary, An. Dom. 1549. which calls to my remembrance what Mr. Fox saith in commendation of the Protector: Sec before §. ●04. That, in the first consultation about Religion had at Windsor, he, in the zealous defence of God's truth, opposed the Bishops. I have here on purpose thrown together thus many testimonies; to give you a fuller view of the Clergy's temper in the time of those innovations; and to manifest the more, how neither the Prelates (except those new ones, whom King Edward advanced); nor the inferior Clergy, neither at first, nor at last, were so conforming to the Kings proceed, as is pretended out of the charge against Winchester, That the Injunctions were by all of all sorts obediently received etc. §. 126 To θ. 1. To θ. First; That whereas there was many Acts of Reformation from time to time set forth by King Edward; we do not find, that the major part of the Clergy, in any Convocation or Synod before the fifth year of the King's Reign, is pretended to have consented to any of them, save one; namely the new Form of Common-Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments, in the second year of the King: and that consent was also had after this Book was, first, passed and made a Law by Act of Parliament; as may be gathered: 1. Both by the Act, which mentions only the composing of this Book by Bishops and other Learned men (which were in all fourteen, whereof seven Bishops; two of which were Cranmer and Ridley) but not any concurrence or authority of a Synod. See Heylin Sect 5.7 3●. (But, had the decree of Synod preceded the Act of Parliament; this, which was more, would rather have been mentioned, than the other, which was less.) and which Act also by virtue of itself, see before §. 40. not of arty Synodical Act, confers authority on the Clergy to excommunicate the Opposers of this Common-Prayer-Book. 2. And by the manner of sending to the Clergy the second reformed Common-Prayer-Book in the fifth year of King Edward; which was authoritate Regis & Parliamenti; as you may see in the 36 of the 42 Articles, Liber qui nuperrime authoritate Regis & Parliamenti Ecclesiae Anglicanae traditus est, similiter & libellus eâdem authoritate editus de Ordinatione Ministrorum quoad doctrinae veritatem pii sunt etc. Which stile differs much from either of these, A Rege & Farliamento Ecclesiae Anglicanae traditus; i. e, that it might be established by the Church's authority; or; Ab Ecclesiâ Anglicanâ Regi & Parliamento propositus, i. e, that, being established by the Church, it might be enjoined also, under temporal punishments, by the State Laws. Neither do the words following in that Article (see them recited before §. 110.) Express any authoritative ratification, but only a single testimony of their judgement concerning those Forms; or say any thing which any other person, void of authority, may not use. Now of this consent of the Convocations, An. 1549. to the Act of Parliament, and to the draught of the fourteen Composers of the first Common-Prayer-Book, a chief motive, (besides fear of punishment in disobeying the King and Parliaments Injunctions or Laws,) was, as I conceive, this; because this new Form contained in it only the omission of some former practices of the Church (as likewise the later Common-Prayer-Book more omissions) but no declaration against any former Church-practice or Doctrine; of which I shall say more by and by. And had King Edward's Reformation been content to have stayed here, See §. 157. it had been much more tolerable (though these omissions I excuse not, as faultless, or not offending against former Church-Canons:) But his Reformation proceeded much further, to the condemning also of the Church's tenants and practice; which cannot be showed to have been ratified by the first Clergy of King Edward till the fifth year of his Government; of which I shall speak hereafter. But, as for any other consent of the major part of the Bishops or Clergy, proved to be yielded to the Kings other Injunctions, from the paucity of the number of those who were imprisoned, or ejected, in comparison of the rest; the argument is not good. First, Because many more might descent, and refuse obedience thereto, then were ejected or imprisoned or questioned for it. Might? Nay did descent; for the Parliament beggeth their pardon; see before §. 120: and it is accounted a prudent policy of State, where very many are guilty, only to punish some of the chief for Example sake. Secondly, And again many more might be ejected, or questioned for this, than are by name mentioned in Fox or others: and were so; if you consider the testimonies before cited. Thirdly, But suppose only a few of the Clergy imprisoned or ejected; yet as, where all the rest unanimously accord, this restraint of a few changeth not the Church-affairs: so when such a body is divided, and all the rest are not of one mind; this withdrawing of a few, especially if these be the prime Leaders, and the introducing of so many new voters, who are of a contrary persuasion, into their rooms, (suppose, taking away six old Bishops, and putting six new ones in their places) may render that, which was before a major and the more prevalent, now a lesser and a weaker, part; and consequently, if they be unjustly withdrawn, will render the Act of this major part invalid. §. 127 Secondly, 2. That submittance of Convocation to the new Form of Common-Prayer etc. may not be reckoned for a lawful Synodical Act; because of the violence used formerly upon the Clergy, enforcing, as other Ecclesiastical Injunctions of the King, so also, the new Form of Communion, before it was proposed to any Parliament or Convocation; for proof of which I refer you to the former testimonies; that I may spare the taedium of repeating them. But what the inclinations of the old Clergy were (for I speak not of the new induced by little and little into their places by King Edward) if the hand of violence and threats of a new law-giving civil-power had been removed from them (touching which see their sad complaint before §. 47) may be gathered, 1. both From what they did immediately before King Edward's days in their establishing by Convocation the Six Articles; and the the Necessary Doctrine: 31. Hen. 8.14. c. And 2. From what they did in King Edward's days; in the very beginning of which Archbishop Cranmer called a Synod of them, wherein he endeavoured to have effected a Reformation, but could not: See Antiquit-Brittan. p. 339. And you see by the Testimonies forecited, how many suffered for opposing the King's Injunctions, and particularly this new Form of Common-Prayer; and how many more of the old Clergy are said to have opposed them in every place, where they might hope for impunity; (insomuch as that this Book in many places was not so much as heard of:) and how a major part even of the Bishops are by Protestants confessed in their conformity only to have used an ontward compliance and dissimulation. Lastly 3. From what they, so many as remained of them, did immediately after King Edward s time, so soon as this Yoke of fear was removed in the entrance of Queen Mary: at which time they threw-off their former vizards; and plainly renounced not only the rest of the Reformation, the fruit; but also the Regal Supremacy (i. e, quoad talia) the root. Nor could fear, when the Sovereign power rechanged, ever make them (taught by long experience) to take up again their former disguise: amongst whom the major part of those seven Bishops chosen to compose the new Common-Prayer-Book, who survived to Queen Mary's days, namely Day, Thirlby, and Goodrig (skip Bishop of Hereford, and Holbeck Bishop of Lincoln being dead before) deserted this new Form, and returned again to the Mass. And it is probable, that some of those Bishops, who by Queen Mary were ejected for Marriage (some of them even after a Monastic profession) conformed themselves likewise to the old Religion: because though they lived here at home in so inquisitive and severe times, we find not, that they were restrained, or proceeded against as Heretics. Such were Holgate, Bird, Bush, etc. §. 128 Now; since such were the inclinations of all or most of King Edward's first Clergy; and to be swayed only from the profession thereof by fear: no marvel, if his Council went about reforming (at the first) by virtue of the new Supremacy, before the calling of any Synod; save that wherein Archbishop Cranmer was frustrated of his intentions. And Dr. Fern, Exam. Champ. 2. c. §. 8. makes this Apology for such proceeding. That Reformation of God's worship may be warrantably done without a foregoing Synodical vote; where there is just and apparent cause of fearing more danger from the persons, which are to be convocated, and the times wherein they are to assemble. To which purpose (saith he) sounds that known complaint of Nazianzen, That he saw no good end of Councils [spoken by reason of the prevailing faction of the Arrians in his time] We cannot say the Sovereign Prince is bound in the way of prudence always to receive his directions from a vote in a Synod; especially where there is just cause of fear [I suppose, that he means Fear, that the Synod will go contrary to what the Prince thinks to be right:] but he may have greater reason to ask advice from persons free from the exceptions of factious interests; to which the most of them that should meet are apparently obnoxious. And (saith he) how far this was considerable in the beginning of King Edward's Reign [i. e, till the King had otherwise moulded the Members of the Synod] or whether such fear made them forbear to put it at first to a Synodical Vote, I cannot say. Thus Dr. Fern. §. 129 And much-what in the same manner doth Dr. Heylin, Eccles. Vindic. 2. Par. 5. §. p. 82. discourse of King Edward's Reformation (to show you, that our modern Writers are not without some apprehension of the neglect of the Church authority in it.) Which reviving (saith he) of the ancient Forms of God's worship rather than the introduction of a new, as the King [Edward] did here in England by his own authority, the body of the Clergy not consulted in it; so, possibly, there might be good reason, why those, who had the conduct of the King's Affairs, thought it not safe to put the managing of the business to a Convocation; [and then having showed that such change of Religion would be both against the reputation and profit of the Clergy, he goes on.] So that as well in point of reputation, as of profit, besides the love which many of them had to their former Mumpsimus, it was most probable; that such an hard piece of Reformation would not easily down, had it been put into the power of a Convocation; especially under a Prince in nonage, and a State unsettled. Thus he. As for that which afterward he saith: That this was passed by the Bishops, when it passed in Parliament, the Bishops making the most considerable van of the House of Peers, It is answered by what hath been said before §. 11. n. 2. And what he saith, That all was confirmed by the Clergy on the Post-fact in the Convocation of 1552: shall be answered by and by. See likewise what the same Dr. saith on the same subject in 1. Par. 6. §. p. 36; where, after doubting, whether several particulars of King Edward's Reformation were done of the King's mere motion, or by advice of his Council, or by Consultation With his Bishops; (For (saith he) there is little left upon record of the Convocation of that time, more than the Articles of the year 1552) He speaks also of Queen Elizabeth's Reformation done after the same sort, Thus also (saith he) in Queen Elizabeth's time, before the new Bishops were well settled, and the Queen assured of the affection of her Clergy; she went that way to work in the Reformation, which her two Predecessors [Henry and Edward] had done before her, in the well ordering of the Church; she published her Injunctions etc. But when the times were better settled, and the first difficulties of her Reign passed over; she left Church-work to the disposing of Churchmen: who by their place and calling were most proper for it; and they being met in Convocation did make Canons etc. And thus if a Prince, according to the Sect which himself and his Council favours, may take the liberty, with coactive power, to reform at the first against his Clergy: he, within a short time no doubt, may securely leave the Church-work to Churchmen (as the Dr. saith) and justify his Reformation by his Clergy, that is, either changed first; or terrified. §. 130 To χ. To χ. These two I grant differ little. 1 The Clergy's first motioning to the King, 2. or, The King's first motioning to the Clergy, a Reformation of something in Doctrine or Manners; so that the Clergy, uncompelled or forced by the King, establish it, before it be enjoined, or imposed on, any, to be observed. But this following differs from the former toto coelo: viz. When the King, directed by some particular Bishops, (whom he thinks good to advise with) proposeth to the Clergy a Reformation in Doctrine, not to be consulted on by them and their judgement to be exhibited to him; (upon the assent or denial of a major part of whom, as having in these things the legislative power, such Reformation may be established or laid aside) but to be obeyed and submitted-to by the Clergy; as the King having the legislative power in these things by his Ecclesiastical Supremacy; to be obeyed and submitted to by them, upon penalties of suspension, imprisonment, deprivation, etc. and when upon this in the issue (after some of the Clergy punished) the rest do conform to the King's commands. Now which of these two were the proceed of King Edward; I refer the matter to the Story of those times, and the testimonies above produced. §. 131 First, And note here, 1. That though the whole Clergy should have submitted to such a Reformation; yet cannot it be said to be their authentic Act at all; or to be done, but suffered, by them: as long as another's command and force comes in; especially, where an after departure of a many of them shows us, that their former compliance was feigned. 2. That though the submittance of the whole Clergy to such a Reformation had been ex animo and voluntary; yet this rendereth not the former Imposition or Injunction of the King lawful or obligatory: the lawfulness or unlawfulness of which cannot depend on an after casual event. For I ask: Suppose the Clergy generally had opposed them, were these Injunctions justly imposed upon them by the King or not? If not; Then neither were they justly imposed, though the Clergy had consented; because imposed before they consented, whose consent is held necessary, that they may be justly imposed. But, if justly imposed; then why is the Clergy's consent or reception of such Injunctions at all urged here to justify them? Suppose a Prince should first decide some Theological Controversy; and then require submission thereto, just on the same side affirmatively or negatively, as a Synod of the Clergy would have done both these; yet thus, he taketh their office not rightly; though he manageth it not amiss. And such Act will not be allowable; because to the justifying of an action two things are requisite: That the thing be right which is done; That the person have lawful authority to do it. §. 132 3. That the King or State never sought for, or pretended the Synods consent, as authoritative to make the Kings or their Ecclesiastical Injunctions lawful or obligatory: but required the duty of their obedience to these Acts of the King's Supremacy; which Supremacy was confirmed both by the Clergy's Recognition and Oath. Which thing is sufficiently manifested; in that many of the King's Ecclesiastical Injunctions were set forth, and did exact the Clergy's obedience to them, before any Synods consent given or asked; and when it was yet uncertain, whether a major part would approve, or condemn them. But, if you desire further evidence thereof, I refer you to the matter delivered before, In §. 40, 41. &c. where you may see the Parliament Acts establishing such Laws, without pretending or involving any Synodal authority; nay giving authority by virtue of such Act to the Clergy to execute such Laws; and In §. 45; where you may see, why it was necessary, according to their principles, that they should do so; and In §. 45; where you may see, the obedience thought due in these matters to the regal Supremacy, and the edicts issuing from it, required to be subscribed by Winchester: and In §. 47; where you may see the description of the exauctorated State of the Clergy in those times; and In §. 103; where you may see the usual stile of Henry the Eighth (whose Supremacy was no way remitted by his Son); and In §. 107. etc. and, §. 113. the practice of Edward the Sixth; which yet will be further declared in the following instances of his Supremacy. W hen therefore the consent of Synod or Convocation is urged, to the people or to some single person, by the King, or his Council; it is not urged, as an authority (see the reason §. 45.) which these, as subject to their decrees, aught to obey; but as an example, which these, as less knowing, aught to follow. But if the bare mentioning sometimes of the Clergy's consent argues this than thought necessary to the establishing of such decrees; then would the mentioning of the consent of Parliament argue as much, which is urged together with that of the Clergy; and so no Ecclesiastical Acts of the King and Clergy would be obligatory, unless confirmed by Parliament. But this will destroy the authority of the 42 Articles made in the fifth year of King Edward; ratified by no Parliament. §. 133 To λ To λ the Answer is prepared out of what hath been already said to θ. That, before there had been any force used upon the Clergy, a Reformation was endeavoured in a Synod by Archbishop Cranmer; but repelled. That the vote of a Convocation, after such violences first used, after Clergy restrained or changed, is not to be reckoned free. That the major part only outwardly complied for fear, as is confessed by Protestants; and seen both in their former decrees under King Henry; and in their sudden recidivation (I mean the Clergy not introduced by King Edward) under Queen Mary. That this consent of Convocation can only be urged for the Common-Prayer-Book; but not for other parts of the Reformation: which new Form of Common-Prayer omitted rather than gainsaid the former Church-tenents and practice; and these omissions not so many in the former Book of King Edward, as in the latter. That this consent of Convocation is not urged in the places cited as necessary to make the King and Parliaments Church-Constitutions valid; but as exemplary, to make others more conformable to them. That the Bishops that framed this new Form of public Service, were but seven: whereof those who survived till Queen Mary's time, except Cranmer and Ridley, returned to the Mass. §. 134 To μ. To μ. First, Whether there was indeed any such Synodal Act, as is here pretended in the times of King Edward, shall be examined hereafter. But Secondly, Supposing, for the present, that there was so; I answer, (besides that which is said in the Reply to λ and θ appliable to this;) That by this time the Clergy was much changed, according to Mr. Fox's description made thereof before §. 107; a many new Bishops introduced by King Edward; several old ones displaced; so that now, after the State's five years reforming, Church-work, (to use Dr. Heylin's Phrase) might more securely be committed to Churchmen: Yet that many also then, for fear of the times, either absented themselves from this Synod; or in the Synod were guilty of much dissimulation; as appears by their contrary votes soon after in the beginning of Queen Mary. See before §. 51. §. 135 To ν. To ν. I answer, That if such Synodal Acts were of the right Clergy, and their Acts voluntary and unforced; the Reformation here in England from the time of such Synods, was, as to this authority, regular and canonical; till reversed by the like authority. But then this Reformation, as it is supposed to be made by the Clergy, is void upon another account; viz. as being contrary to the former definitions of lawful superior Councils; as may be seen in the several decrees of those Councils (set down in Chur. Govern. 4. Part) compared with these 42 Articles, and the Homilies approved by them. CHAP. IX. Continuation of the same, descending to Particulars: And of his first Change of the Public Liturgy. §. 136 HAving thus described in general the way of King Edward's Reformation, H. More particularly and exercising his Supremacy, and partly examined the Apologies made for it: we will now proceed to nominate to you the several particulars of his Reformation; which is usually covered under the name of alteration only of some Rites and Ceremonies; as if the Doctrines of the Church suffered no change under him. In sending certain doctrinal Articles to be subscribed by the Bishop of Winifrid chester. By virtue of such Supremacy than were sent those Articles to the imprisoned Bishop of Winchester, to be subscribed; containing several points of Doctrine, or practice involving Doctrine; (some of which have been named before???. 45.) proposed to his Subscription, not as matters passed by any former Synod; but (saith the twentieth Article) as published and set forth by the King's Majesty's authority, by the advice of hit Highness' Council, for many great and godly considerations. Fox p. 1235. Which Articles the Bishop is required there to subscribe, publish and preach; upon the pain of incurring such Penalties, for not doing the same, as may by his Majesty's laws be inflicted upon him. §. 137 By virtue of such Supremacy the Six Articles (which contained matter of Doctrine and Faith, ja repealing the Six Articles passed by Synod in Hen 8. time. Stat. 31. Hen. 8.14. c. Fox p. 1036 and that in things of no small moment; and which, being determined, and the observance of them enjoined as well by a Synod, as a Parliament, justly stand in force, till a revocation of them by another Synod of like authority) were repealed in the beginning of King Edward's Reign without any such Synod; see Stat. 1. Edw. 12. c. and the Members of the Church of England freed from any further obedience to them. By which it now became free for any, though having formerly made contrary vows, to Marry, to omit sacerdotal Confession, to preach against the Real Presence, and the Sacrifice of the Mass; contrary to the decrees of former Councils, and this National Synod. §. 138 ja seizing on Religious houses and some Bishop's lands, and denying the lawfulness of Motastick Vows. By virtue of such Supremacy this King (I mean always the Council in the King's name, and by his authority) not only justified the power used by his Father over the possessions of Monasteries and Religious Houses; but declared also Monastic Vows to be unlawful, superstitious and unobliging. Therefore the first Article drawn up for Winchester's Subscription was this, That the late King Henry the Eighth justly and of good reason had caused to be suppressed and defaced all Monasteries, Religious Houses, etc. and, That the same being so dissolved, the persons therein bound and professed to obedience to a person, place, habit, and other superstitious Rites and Ceremonies, are, upon that order appointed by the King's Majesty's authority, as Supreme Head of the Church, clearly released and acquitted of those Vows and Professions, and at their full liberty, as though those unwitty and superstitious vows had never been made. Thus the Article. And hence it was, that some, formerly monastics, in King Edward's days married Wives; but this Doctrine his Supremacy did deliver, contrary to the Doctrine which his Father's Supremacy published: See before §. 95. This King also continued his Father's practice, in seizing upon that piously devoted means, which his Father's sudden death, after the concession of them by Parliament, had left undevoured: I mean Chaunteries, Free-Chappels, Colleges, Hospitals, etc. See Stat. 1. Edw. 6.14. c. But this he did upon another pretence than his Father; by reason that his Doctrine herein varied from his Fathers: His pretence being, the unlawfulness of offering the Sacrifice of the Eucharist, or giving alms, for the defunct; but his Father's pretence, who in his Doctrine justified these, being quite another; as you may see before, §. 92. And therefore the second Act of Parliament in his, Stat. 37. H●n. 3.4 c. 1. Edw. 6.14. c. and in his Father's time, that agree alike in the donation of these Revenues, yet vary in their prefaces and motives. §. 139 But in this he went beyond his Father; that He began the taking of Bishop's lands also: Sacrilege, now after the gain thereof was grown sweet, keeping no bounds. After therefore that learned and virtuous Prelate Tonstal (left by his Father one of his Governors) ejected, He (I mean his Council and Courtiers; for happy was that King of his Childhood, that it preserved him unblameable for these things) seized upon that rich and tempting Bishopric of Durham. Of which thus Bishop Godwin, The removing of these obstacles [the ejected Bishops] made way for the invasion of their Widow-Sees. For as soon as Tonstal was exauctorated, that rich Bishopric of Duresme by Act of Parliament was wracked: the chief Revenues and Customs of it being incorporated to the Crown; and the rest so gelded, that at this day it scarce possesseth the third part of its ancient Revenues. The hungry Courtier finding how good a thing the Church was, had now for some years become acquainted with it, out of zealous intent to prey. Neither could the horridness of her sacred Skeleton as yet so work on him, as to divert his resolutions, and compassionately to leave the Church to her religious poverty. Beside, the infancy of the King, in this uncertain ebb and flow of Religion, made her opportune to all kind, of Sacrilege. So that (saith he) we are to thank the Almighty Guardian of the Church, that these Locusts have not quite devoured the maintenance of the labourers in this English Vineyard. Thus he concerning that Bishopric; who, had he lived in these days, might hare seen the multiplied generation of those Locusts devour his own. Besides Duresme, (for any thing I can find) the Bishopric of Rochester after 1551 (when Scory was removed thence) and that of Westminster after 1550 (when Thirlby was removed thence) were enjoyed by the Crown, until Queen Mary's days; besides that of Worcester given in Commendam to Hooper, to exercise the Jurisdiction and Episcopality thereof, with some short allowance for his pains, saith Dr. Heylin, Hist. of Reform. under Edw. 6. p. 101. In which Author also see the spoil committed in those days upon the Bishoprics of Bath and Wells p. 54; of Coventry and Lichfield; of Landaff, of Lincoln, and others p. 100, 101. 129. and elsewhere. Sure, foul things were done in this kind in those innovating times; because I find even some of King Edward's favourite-Bishops highly to dislike them. For Bishop Ridley in his Treatise, Apud Fox 9 1616. lamenting the State of England relates how he and Cranmer were both in high displeasure [with the great ones] for repugning, (as they might well) against the late spoil of the church-good, taken away only by commandment of the higher powers, without any law or order of Justice; and without request or consent of them to whom they did belong. And Calvin in a Letter to Archbishop Cranmer written about An. Dom. 1551. giving a reason why the English Church was so ill stored with good Pastors hath these words, Vnum apertum obstaculnm esse intelligo, quod praedae expositi sunt Ecclesiae reditus. So early you see, even together with the first dawning of the Reformation, began that Sacrilege to be committed on some Bishoprics; which our days have seen accomplished on the rest: Lay menders of Religion ordinarily terminating in these two things; the advancing of their carnal Liberty, and temporal Estates. §. 140 In defacing of Images. By virtue of such Supremacy, He caused to be removed out of Churches, and to be defaced and destroyed, all Images of Saints. Concerning which Reformation his Council writes to the Archbishop of Canterbury in this stile, We have thought good to signify unto you, that his Highness' pleasure with the advice and consent of us the Lord Protector and the rest of the Council is, that immediately upon the sight hereof you shall give order, that all the Images remaining in any Church within your Diocese be taken away; and also by your Letters shall signify unto the rest of the Bishops within your Province this his Highness' pleasure etc. Fox p. 1183. See likewise Stat. 3. and 4. Edw. 6.10. c. This he did when as the second Nicene Council not only had allowed, but recommended the use of them. But he proceeded also further than this; and declared the worshipping and veneration of any such Images or Relics to be repugnant to God's word, and unlawful, superstitious, idolatrous. See the 22 of the 42 Articles; and Article to Winchester 11; and the Doctrine of his Homilies. §. 141 By virtue of such Supremacy, He imposed (An. Dom. 1547) a Book of Homilies, not approved by any Synod before, nor after till 1552, if then; in which Book were stated several Controversies of Divinity. See Article 11 of the 42 referring to these Homilies for the stating of Justification ex solâ fide; the King forbidding the Clergy to preach any Doctrine repugnant to the same Homilies, under pain of being silenced, or otherwise punished. §. 142 ●●injoyning administration of the Communion in both ●inds. See before, §. 108. Winchester Articles 15. Fox p. 1255. By virtue of such Supremacy, He laid a command upon the Clergy to administer the Communion to the people in both kinds, Stat. 1. Ed. 6.1. c. Co●cil. Constant. 13. sess. See before, §. 118. contrary to the Injunction of the Council of Constance; and without any preceding confutation of a National Synod; and notwithstanding the former late decree concerning the nonnecessity thereof by the same National Synod in Henry the Eighth's days, in the second of the Six Articles. §. 143 In suppressieg the former Church Liungies, Ordiaals', and other Rituals. By virtue of such Supremacy, He caused to be removed and suppressed the former Church Liturgies and Rituals for the public Prayers, for the celebration of the Communion and other Sacraments, for the Ordinations of the Clergy. See Fox p. 1211. The King (saith he) with the body and state of the Privy Council then being, directed out his Letters of request and straight commandment to the Bishops in their Diocese to cause and warn all Parsons, Curates, etc. to bring in and deliver up all Antiphoners, Missals, Grailes, Processionals, Manuals, Legends, Pies, Ordinals, and all other Books of Service, the having whereof might be any let to the Service now set forth in English; charging also and commanding all such as should be found disobedient in this behalf to be committed unto ward. Saying in the Articles sent to Winchester, That the Mass was full of abuses, Fox p. 1235. and had very few things of Christ's institution, besides the Epistle, Gospel, and the Lord's Prayer, and the words of the Lord's Supper: that the rest for the more part were invented and devised by Bishops of Rome, and by other men of the same sort [i. e. by Ecclesiastical Constitution] and therefore were justly taken away by the Statutes and Laws of this Realm [this being the persuasion of those times, That the King as Supreme might change, as to him seemed good, any thing established only by humane- (though it were Church-) authority.] And see Stat. 3, 4. Edw. 6.10. c. Whereas the King hath of late set forth and established an uniform Order of Common-Prayer and whereas in the former Service-Books are things corrupt, untrue, vain, and superstitious: Be it enacted by the King, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and the Commons in this present Parliament assembled, that all Missals, Ordinals, etc. heretofore used for Service of the Church shall be utterly abolished, extinguished, etc. §. 144 And injetting u● new Forms of celebrating the Communion. But you must observe that all was not done at once, or at the first, but by certain steps and degrees. For Example. The Form of administering the Communion suffered three Alterations or Reformations one after another; the later still departing further from the ancient Form used in the Church than the former. First the King: assembled certain Bishops and others at Windsor in the first year of his Reign (such as he pleased to appoint) to compile a new Form of celebrating the Communion according to the Rule (saith Fox p. 1184) of the Scriptures of God, and first usage of the Primitive Church. Yet the Bishops at this time so ordered and moderated the matter (which perhaps may be the reason of those words in Fox see before §. 125. See Heylin Hist. of K. Edw. p. 57 That the Protector at Windsor in the zealous defence of God's truth opposed the Bishops) that the whole office of the Mass should proceed as formerly in the Latin, even to the very end of the Canon, and the receiving of the Sacrament by the Priest himself. Which done the Priest is appointed to begin the exhortation in English. [We be come together at this time Dear Beloved etc.] as it is in the present English Liturgy. After which follows also the dissuasion of great offenders impenitent from receiving, the General Confession and Absolution, the Prayer [We presume not etc.] and so the administration of the Eucharist to the people in both kinds. The words of the Rubric in that first Order of the Communion reprinted at London 61 are these, The time of the Communion [of the people] shall be immediately after that the Priest shall have received the Sacrament, without the varying of any other Rite or Ceremony in the Mass (until other order shall be provided.) But as heretofore usually the Priest hath done with the Sacrament of the Body, to prepare bless and consecrate so much as will serve the people, so it shall yet continue still after the same manner and form; save that, he shall bless and consecrate the biggest Chalice or some fair and convenient Cup or Cups full of Wine with some water put unto it, and that day, not drink it up all himself; but taking one only sup or draught leave the rest upon the Altar covered, and thus exhort the people, Dear beloved etc. Thus the Rubric. And this Form (as Mr. Fox goes on) exhabited unto the King was by his Majesty's Council particularly sent to every Bishop of the Realm, requiring and commanding them, by their Letters on the King's Majesty's behalf, that they should forthwith have diligent respect to the due execution thereof etc. In which Letter the motive urged by the Council why this new Form was drawn up and imposed, is; That the Statute of the former Parliament, ordering that the Sacrament should be distributed unto the people in both kinds, might be well executed, in such sort as is agreeable with the word of God [as if for the distribution of the Sacrament in both kinds there was any need of altering or superadding any thing to the Mass; when as, with that same Form of the Mass it was in the public Communions, for many Centuries, only so distributed; and when as that same Form of the Mass is urged by Protestants, as contrary to communicating the people only in one kind; but the true cause of altering it I shall show you by and by.] Now this new Form was thus imposed by the King and his Council, before allowed by any Synod of the Clergy, or Act of Parliament; which were procured afterward in the second Parliament of King Edward. Meanwhile such alterations in King Edward's time about the Doctrine and the Administration of this Sacrament as they were uncanonical, so they were, in this respect, also very hurtful; in that they occasioned (in the ignorant especially) much profaneness and irreverence toward the Blessed Sacrament in those days; as you may partly also gather from an Act (1. Edw. 6.1. c.) made against such irreverent speaking against it. For whereas the Sacrament was, according to ancient custom, delivered to each Communicant in a small round Wafer, hence they gave it the name of Round-Robin. And because the parts thereof, that were reserved to be carried to the sick, were hanged up over the Altar in a Pix or Box; they named it Jack in a Box; and instead of the Sacrament of the Altar, called it the Sacrament of the Halter. (See Heylin's Hist. of Reform. 49.63.) Such profaneness followed the remedy of what they called Superstition. §. 145 Secondly, 2. Of Ordination. See 3, 4. Edw. 6.10. c. Having likewise condemned, amongst other superstitious Books, the former Church-form of Ordination and Consecration of Bishops and Priests, the King caused a new Form to be prescribed, upon this pretence in the Act of Parliament, That so concord and unity might be had, within his Majesty's dominions, in these Ordinations. [But could not this have been done without innovation, by strictly confining all to the use of the former Church form; or, if these were various, to some one of them?] Stat. 3, 4. Edw. 6.12. c. Now for the compiling of this new Form the Parliament orders, That such, as by fix Prelates, See before, §. 42. and six others to be appointed by the King, or by the major part of them, should be devised for that purpose and set forth under the great Seal, should by virtue of their Act (without obtaining or requiring any ratification thereof from any Synod) be lawfully used, and none other, any law or prescription to the contrary thereof notwithstanding. In which new Form, amongst other things, which were in the former, now cast out, this is one, (to the great contradiction of all Antiquity) The Bishops conferring on the ordained Presbyters potestatem offerendi sacrificium propriè dictum & verè propitiatorium (see in what sense understood and explained by the Church in Discourse of the Eucharist, §. 251. &c) Deo, Missasque celcbrandi tam pro vivis quam pro defunctis. Quod omnem superat impietatem, saith Mason de Minist. p. 242. 17. c. And this is another: The Oath of Submission of the Ordained or Consecrated to the Supremacy of the Patriarch: instead of which is prescribed another Oath, to the Supremacy of the Temporal Prince. From which Regal Supremacy also we find Cranmer (after fifteen years governing the Province of Canterbury) receiving, at the coming in of a new Sovereign, a new Licence of ordaining Bishops and Priests therein durante Beneplacito Regis. [The Form, as Sanders p. 170. hath set it down, runs thus, Quandoquidem omnis jurisdicendi authoritas atque etiam jurisdictio omnimoda, tam illa quae ecclesiastica dicitur, quam seecularis, a Regia petestate velut a supremo capite manta etc. Ad ordinandum igitur quoscunque intra Diaecesim tuam Cantuariensem & ad omnes etiam sacros & Presbyteratus ordines promovendum, per praesentes ad nostrum beneplacitum duraturos, tibi damus potestatem.] And some such thing is intimated by Mr. Prin (unbishoping of Timothy p. 80.) I must inform our Bishops (saith he) for their Learning, that all the Bishops in King Edward the Sixth's time had special clauses in their Letters Patents authorising them to ordain Ministers and Deacons; as Bishop Poynet's, Scory's, Coverdale's Patents (5. Edw. 6. pars. 1.) testify at large (and there is no wonder in this, if you recall to mind Archbishop Cranmers Answers to the Queries made concerning these matters recited before §. 105. n. 3.): Which Patents, if they imply such a Supremacy Ecclesiastical in the Prince, as that he may, if he please, prohibit any Ecclesiastical person at all from ordaining Ministers in his dominions, are contrary to the first Thesis above. §. 2. But yet this new Ordinal was not so well purified from former Superstitions, See in Fox p. 1366. the Kings and Earl of War wick's Letters. but that some who were presented to Bishoprics were stumbled therewith; and the King's dispensation was obtained, in order to the consecrating of Bishop Hooper, for his not observing of some things therein; and particularly for his not taking the new Oath, either that of obedience to the Archbishop; or that of the King's Supremacy; which perhaps he, lately seasoned abroad with Calvin's Doctrine, See before: §. 37. could not so easily digest. §. 146 Thirdly, 3● of Common Prayer. Not long after the production of the new Form in administering the Communion, in the second year of his Reign he caused it to be reviewed; and also then to be drawn up a new Form of Common Prayer for Matins and Evensong, and the Administration of the other Sacraments of the Church (if I may use the phrase of the Act, 2. Edw. 6.1. c.): which Form composed by seven Bishops, and seven other learned men of the Clergy chosen by the King (yet one of them Day Bishop of Chicester, after it was done, refused to subscribe it; who was afterward also turned out of his Bishopric. See Heylin's Hist. of Reform. p. 65. quoting the Register of Petworth) was authorized by Act of Parliament, and at the same time consented to (as it seems by what is urged above §. 110) by a Convocation of the Clergy: of which see what is said §. 126. And the pretence of making this new Form, in the Preface of that Act, is this, That, whereas of long time there had been in the Realm divers Forms of Common Prayer, the use of Sarum, of York, of Bangor and Lincoln; and besides the same, now of late much more divers and sundry Forms and Fashions have been used &c: to stay Innovation and Rites concerning the Premises; his Highness, being pleased to bear with the frailty and weakness of his subjects in that behalf, hath appointed the Archbishop of Canterbury etc. having as well respect to the most pure Christian Religion taught by the Scripture, as to the usages in the Primitive Church, to draw and make one convenient and meet order, rite and fashion of Common-Prayer and Administration to be had and used in his Majesty's Realms. Thus the Act. But to remedy these innovations or diversities of Forms, how easy had it been to establish any one of the ancient Forms? Or at least reasonable, to retain in the new draught those things wherein all the former Church-Services agreed? And not themselves to innovate, for the hindering of innovations? But the fact discovers the intention. §. 147 Out of which was ejected the Sacrifice of the Mass. For in this new draught was ejected and left out the Sacrifice of the Mass, or the oblation to God of the Holy Eucharist, as propitiatory or impetratory of any benefits, to the living, or to the dead; contrary to the belief of former Church and Councils, as is mentioned before §. 118. And for this reason were the Altars in Churches commanded to be changed into Tables; that the eating might be thought on, but not the offering. Whenas Hooper had preached before the King, That so long as Altars remained, both the ignorant people, and the ignorant and evil-perswaded Priest would always dream of Sacrifice: and besides, the great men about the Court (saith Dr. Heylin, Hist. of Reform. p. 95.) had promised themselves no small hopes of profit by the dis-furnishing these Altars of the Hang, Palls, Plate, and other rich Utensils.— The leaving of one Chalice to every Church with a Cloth or covering for the Communion-Table being thought sufficient. Upon the same excuse were the Chaunteries, Free-Chappels etc. seized on, as chief erected for the relieving of the deceased with the offering of this Sacrifice, and the Alms and Prayers accompanying it; of which see before §. 138. The benefit of which Sacrifice for the dead was yet a thing the more maintainable in those days; because the new Form still retained this manner of praying for the dead, Grant unto this thy Servant that the sins which he committed in this world be not imputed unto him; but that he, escaping the gates of Hell, and pains of eternal darkness, may ever dwell in the region of light with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, in the place where is no weeping, sorrow, nor heaviness, etc. See the Order for Burial, Fol. 28. §. 148 For the exclusion of this Sacrifice, Where 1. Concerning the alterations in the first Common-Prayer Book if K. Edward's in relation to the Sac ifice of the Eucharist. you may find in the new Communion (see Communion, Fol. 128.) all those expressions in the former Liturgy, that signify it, diligently canceled (forbidding also the elevation of the Host after Consecration;) as these following, In the Canon before Communicating; Te supplices rogamus ac petimus, uti accepta habeas & benedicas haec dona, haec munera, haec sancta sacrificia illibata; inprimis quae Tibi offerimus pro Ecclesiâ tuâ sanctâ Catholicâ etc. And, Memento Domine famulorum &c, pro quibus tibi offcrimus hoc sacrificium laudis pro redemptione animarum suarum, pro spe salutis & incolumitatis suae etc. And, Memores ejusdem Christi filii tui, tam beatae passionis etc. offerimus praeclarae Majestati tuae de tuis donis ac datis, Hostiam puram, Hostiam sanctam, Hostiam inmaculatam, panem sanctum vit● aeternae, & calicem salutis perpetuae: supra quae propitio ac sereno vultu respicere digneris, & accepta habere sicuti accepta habere dignatus es munera pueri tui justi Abel, & sacrificium Patriarchae nostril Abrahae, & quod tibi obtulit summus sacerdos tuus Melchisedech, sanctum sacrificium, immaculatam hostiam. Jube haec perferri per manus Sancti Angeli tui in sublime altar tuum in conspectu Divinae Majestatis tuae: ut quotquot ex hac altaris participatione, sacrosanctum Filii tui corpus & sanguinem sumpserimus, omni benedictione caelesti & gratiâ repleamur. And that in Postcommunion; Praesta, ut sacrificium, quod oculie tuae Majestatis indignus obtuli, Tibi sit acceptabile, & omnibus, pro quibus illud obtuli, sit, te miserante, propitianile. These Expressions I say are canceled, and, instead of these, the new Form makes an oblation to God, not of the consecrated Gifts or Sacrament, (at least expressly) but of our thanks, and of our own persons and service. But this Oblation, in imitation of the former, it brings in immediately after the Consecration, and before Communicating, whilst the conescrated Elements yet remain upon the Table. This new Form I thought good to transcribe; because perhaps you may not have the Book. Wherefore (O Lord and heavenly Father) according to the institution of thy dearly beloved Son, we do celebrate and make here before thy Divine Majesty, with these thy holy Gifts, the Memorial, which thy Son hath willed us to make, having in remembrance his blessed Passion etc. [where, whether some of the Composers (who were of different persuasions see before, §. 127, 128.) retaining the former intentions under an only-varied expression might not extend these ambiguous words to an offering of the holy mysteries to God the Father, as a commemorative Sacrifice of that of his Son upon the Cross, I cannot say: but thus it goes on] Rendering unto thee most hearty thanks for the innumerable benefits procured unto us by the same. Entirely desiring thy Fatherly goodness mercifully to accept this our Sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving. Most humbly beseeching thee to grant, that by the merits and death of thy Son Jesus Christ, We and all thy whole Church may obtain remission of our sins, and all other benefits of his Passion. And here we offer and present unto thee (O Lord) ourselves, our souls and bodies to be a reasonable, holy, and lively Sacrifice unto Thee: humbly beseeching thee, that whosoever shall be partakers of this Holy Communion, may worthily receive the most precious body and blood of thy Son Jesus Christ, and be fulfilled with thy grace and heavenly benediction [the ancienter Form, Ut quotquot ex hac altaris participatione Sacro-sanctum Filii tui corpus & sanguinem sumpserimus, omni benedictione etc. repleamur, seems to be thus changed, because Christ's body and blood were held by some only to be present to, and received by, the worthy Communicant, and not to the Symbols.] And although we be unworthy etc. to offer unto thee any Sacrifice; yet we beseech thee to accept this our bounden duty and service, and command these our Prayers and Supplications [put instead of panis sanctus & calix salutes] by the ministry of thy Holy Angels to be brought up into thy holy Tabernacle [formerly. Altar] before the sight of thy Divine Majesty etc. §. 149 Thus were things mended in the first Form of King Edward. 2 Concerning the further alterations in the second Common-Prayer Book in relation to the same Sacrifice. Stat 5, 6. Edw. 6.1. c. But in the latter Common-Prayer Book, which came out a new-reformed three years after, there is no oblation at all made, nor no petition put up, be 'tween the Consecration, and the receiving of the Holy Mysteries: but the one immediately follows the other. The Collect of humble access [We do not presume to come etc.] and the Lord's Prayer with its Preface [Divinâ institutione formati audemus dicere;] and the Memorial or Prayer of Oblation; which are put, according to the manner of the Mass, after the consecration of the holy Mysteries, and before the receiving of them in the first Form, are all removed in the second: and the first placed before the Elements begin to be consecrated; and the other two placed after the holy Mysteries are removed from the Altar or Table, and are distributed to the Communicants; and in the Prayer of Oblation, the first part thereof [We do celebrate and make the Memorial etc.] is omitted. The reason of which alteration seems to be, That so the new Service might still appear more remote, from making any oblation to God of the consecrated Mysteries remaining on the Table; or from making any request to God in the virtue of the Body and Blood of our Saviour there present. §. 150 But, 3. Concerning the reduction of s●ne things ●ouching this matter in the new Cömon Prayer Book prepared for Scotland to the first Form of K. Edward. again, in the last English Liturgy prepared for Scotland, the sober moderation of those, who governed the Church at this time, thought fit to reduce things, as far, as without offence they might, to the first Form of King Edward: restoring all these Prayers to their former place again; and re-inserting the Memorial in the Front of the Prayer of Oblation. Moreover, in the Prayer for the State of the Catholic Church, adding these words [We commend especially unto thy merciful goodness the Congregation here assembled to celebrate the Commemoration of the most precious death and sacrifice of thy Son and our Saviour Jesus Christ;] before which Prayer also they order an oblation to be of the Bread and Wine, prepared for the Sacrament, upon the Lord's Table. All which they seem to have done, as regretting the mistaken zeal of their Forefathers, misled by Calvin and other foreign Reformers; but not finding as yet a season for a more complete reduction of the Reformation to the former universal practice of the Church of God. §. 151 Much complained of in Laudensium autocatacrisis. Of all which things thus complains the contrary Party, who looked upon their alterations with a zealous eye, in Laudensium Autocatacrisis p. 109. As for that wicked Sacrifice of the Mass, which the Canon puts at the back of the Consecration, the English [i. e. the later Reformation of Common-Prayer Book under King Edward] banisheth it all utterly out of their Book. But the faction, to show their zeal in their reforming the Errors of the English Church their Mother, 1. puts down here in our Book [the Book sent to Scotland,] at the back of the Consecration, their Memento and Prayer of Oblation. 2. That Prayer of thanksgiving [beginning O Lord etc. we thy humble servants entirely desire] which the English sets after the Communion, (in a place where it cannot be possibly abused, as it is in the Mass, for a propitiatory Sacrifice of Christ's body and blood,) they transpose and set it just in the old place where it stood in the order of Sarum at the back of the Consecration, and before the Communion. 3. The clause of the Missal which for its savour of a Corporal presence the English put out of this Prayer [may worthily receive the most precious body and blood of thy Son Christ Jesus] they have here restored. 4. That we may plainly understand, that this Prayer is so transplanted, and supplied for this very end, that it may serve, as it did of old in the Missal, for a Prayer of Oblation of that unbloody Sacrifice by the Priest for the sins of the world, behold the first eight lines of it, which of old it had in the Missal, but which in the Reformation [the second Reformation under Edward] were scraped out, are plainly restored; wherein we profess to make, and, over again, to make, before God's Divine Majesty, a Memorial; as Christ hath commanded. Which making not only the Papists, but Heylin, speaking from Canterbury, expounds, far otherwise, than either Andrews, Hooker, Montague, or the grossest of the English Divines, for a true, proper, corporal, visible, unbloody, sacrificing of Christ; for which [sacrificing] first the Apostles, and then all Ministers, are as truly Priests, though Evangelical and after the order of Melchisedech, as ever the Sons of Aaron were under the Law; and the Communion-Table, as true and proper an Altar, as ever was the Brazen Altar of Moses [you may see Dr. Heylin 's words in Antid. p. 6. § 2.] 5. After the Consecration and Oblation they put to the Lord's Prayer with the Missals Preface, Audemus dicere. Where the Papists tell us, that the Priest having offered up, in an unbloody Sacrifice, the body of Christ, for the reconciling of us to the Father, becomes bold to say with a loud voice, Pater noster. The English, to banish such absurdities, put away that naughty Preface, and removed the Prayer itself from that place: But our men, to show their Orthodoxy, repone the Prayer in the own old place; and set before it the old Preface. 6. The first English Prayer [We do not presume etc.] which stood before the Consecration (where the passages of eating Christ's Body, and drinking Christ's Blood could not possibly be detorted to a corporal presence) yet now in our Book must change the place, and be brought to its old Stance, after the Consecration and Oblation, immediately before the Communion, as a Prayer of humble access. Thus Autocatacrisis sounded the Trumpet, not without a sad storm falling afterward upon the heads of the English Clergy. §. 152 And the C●lemation of the Eucharist prohibited, wh●n note other to communicate wi●h the Priest. All use of the Eucharist, as a Sacrifice, being thus dis-avowed by King Edward's Reformation, and no benefit acknowledged of this high Service, save to the Communicants in their receiving it, and in the Priests distributing of it to the people; in the next place the Priest was prohibited the celebration thereof, whensoever there were no other Communicants besides himself. [Tho this communicating of the Priest alone is not designed, but a casual, thing, as hath been said; and can only be charged upon the people's neglect and fault: who having the same need thereof, and benefit thereby, as the Priest, might, being many, at least by turns, accompany him in the daily breaking of that celestial Bread (if it were so heinous a thing for him to feed thereon alone) rather than that this the most honourable part of the divine Service should be discontinued in the Church; See before, §. 118. contrary to the former universal practice of Christianity, and also the late judgement, under Henry the Eighth, of the English Clergy.] It was ordered therefore, that all those, called private, Masses should be suppressed: add that on the Litany-days, Wednesdays and Frydays, and all other solemn days of worship, when there was none disposed to communicate with the Priest, he, after the Litany ended, should put upon him a plain Albe or Surplice, with a Cope, and say all things at the Altar appointed to be said at the Celebration of the Lord's Supper, See K. Edw. first Common-Prayer Book Rubifol. 133. until after the Offertory: and then letting alone the foresaid Celebration, add one or two of the Collects which are annexed to the Communion; and then turning him to the people, shall let them departed with the accustomed Blessing. §. 153 And thus first began the Christian Sacrifice, See the first Com. Prayer Book of Ed. 6. fol. 133. (that never ceased formerly in the Church every day, or at least on all solemn days to be offered,) by certain degrees to be omitted in this purified Church; the practice thereof decreasing, from once a day, to once a week; from once a week, to once a month; from this to once a year; and of late in many Churches not to be had at all. Tho they, who in these days of King Edward made the first breach upon the Church's former practice, as it were foreseeing this evil, endeavoured in some part to remedy or prevent it, by enjoining: That, in all Cathedral and Collegiate Churches [where they suppose, that there should be still daily Communion. See King Edward 's first Common-Prayer-Book, Fol. 113, compared with Fol. 123.] there should always in them some communicate with the Priest that ministereth: And that in Parish-Churches, whereas the Parishioners of every Parish were ordered in such a course as they were wont to find the holy Loaf formerly, now to offer every Sunday, at the time of the offertory, the just valour and price of the holy Loaf, with all such money and other things, as were wont to be offered with the same, out of which the Pastors were to provide sufficient Bread and Wine for the weekly Communion; In these Parish-Churches, I say, it was enjoined, that some one at the least [for one, besides the Priest, was as yet sufficient] of that house in the Parish, to which by course it appertained to offer for the charges of the Communion, should on that Sunday receive the Holy Communion with the Priest. Which [saith the Book] may be better done, for that they know before, when their course cometh, and may therefore dispose themselves to the worthy receiving of the Sacrament. And by this means the Minister, having always some to communicate with him, may accordingly solemnize so high and holy mysteries with all the suffrages and due order appointed for the same. But in the second reformed Book these Orders are relaxed, the weekly offering by turns for the charges of the Communion now remitted, the Celebration of the Lord's Supper or Communion required in Cathedral and Collegiate Churches every Sunday; and that in Parish-Churches it should be celebrated at least three times in a year; and that it should be celebrated in no place, at no time, unless there be three to communicate besides him that officeates. By which, when none or only fewer than three offered to communicate with the Priest, he was necessitated to omit this Service, as well in Cathedral as Parish-Churches; notwithstanding any Injunction of frequentation. But the first Innovators might have prudently discerned, that when as the Celebration of this Service, thus, would depend only on the people's devotion, either a reception of the mysteries by the Priest alone must some times be permitted, or this Sacrifice many times omitted. [There are two Injunctions indeed, wherein these Reformers seem to have endeavoured, to some degree, the preservation of the former Devotion of the Clergy in Prayer and Communion. The one, See the Rub. after the Communion. this (forementioned.) That in Cathedral and Collegiate Churches, where be many Priests and Deacons, they-should all receive the Communion with the Minister every Sunday at the least, except they [i. e. some, not all, of them] had a reasonable cause to the contrary. See the P●●face to the Com. Prayer Book. — The other, this (for saying their office daily, as formerly,)— That all Priests and Deacons shall be bound to say daily the Morning and Evening Prayer [yet how short this in respect of the office they quitted!] either openly, in the Parish Church or Chappel, if at home and not being otherwise reasonably letted; or privately, except they be let by Preaching, studying of Divinity, or some other urgent cause. But here also the two exceptive Clauses annexed [Except they have a reasonable cause to the contrary, in the former; and Except they be let by Preaching, studying of Divinity or some other urgent cause, in the latter,] have rendered these Injunctions, as to the general, without vigour and effect, or practice in this Church. Which the Prudence of those who contrived the Scotch Liturgy well observing thought fit thus to qualify the latter Exception: See the Preface to the Scotch Liturgy. Of which Cause, (say they) if it be frequently pretended, they are to make the Bishop of the Diocese, or the Archbishop of the Province the Judge and Allower.] §. 154 And Invocation of Saiats expunged out of the Litanies. Besides the Sacrifice of the Mass thus removed out of the second new Form of the Communion; the Invocation and Suffrages of the Saints were also expunged out of the public Litanies: When-as, even in the first English Litany put out under King Edward, after O Holy Blessed and Glorious Trinity etc. have mercy upon us, it followed thus, Holy Virgin Mary, Mother of God our Saviour Jesus Christ Pray for us. All holy Angels and Arch-Angels, and all holy orders of blessed Spirits pray for us. All holy Patriarches and Prophets, Apostlet, Martyrs, Confessors, and Virgins, and all the blessed company of Heaven, Pray for us. Likewise in the Parliament-Act, 3, 4. Edw. 6.10. c. it is commanded: That in the Primers the sentences of Invocation or Prayer to Saints be blotted and clearly put out of the same. And this contrary to the former universal practice of the Catholic Church. See Chur. Govern. 4. Par. 98. §. §. 155 A●d the necessity of Sacerdotal Confession relaxed. Besides this, in the same new Form is remitted the necessity of Sacerdotal Confession, and the performing of such penitence and humiliation as the Priest shall judge meet; and the receiving of his absolution and reconciliation for those who are conscious to themselves of mortal sins, or grievous crimes, before they may presume to approach to God's Altar, and to the holy Communion of Christ's body and blood (contrary to the former decrees of superior Councils, and practice of the Church Catholic:) Instead whereof it is only here ordered, That if any be an open and notorious evil liver, (so that the Congregation by him is offended) or have done any wrong to his Neighbours, the Curate shall not admit him to the Communion before his giving satisfaction of his repentance to the Congregation, and at least declaring his full purpose to recompense the party wronged: And, before the Communion, Fol. 123. a general exhortation made, That if any be a blasphemer, adulterer, or be in malice, or envy, or any other grievous crime, he should not come to that holy Table, except he be truly sorry therefore, and earnestly-minded to leave the same vices, and do trust himself to be reconciled to Almighty God, and in charity with all the world. This is said indeed in the second Exhortation, Fol. 124. If there be any whose Conscience is troubled, or grieved in any thing, lacking comfort or counsel, let him come to me, or to some other discreet and learned Priest taught in the Law of God, and confess and open his sin and grief secretly; that he may receive such ghostly counsel, advice, and comfort, that his conscience may be relieved; and that, of us, as of the Ministers of God and of the Church, he may receive comfort and absolution, to the satisfaction of his mind, and avoiding of all scruple and doubtsulness. But the words following [viz. Requiring such, as shall be satisfied with a general Confession, not to be offended with them that do use, to their further satisfying, the auricular and secret Confession to the Priest; nor those also which think needful or convenient, for the quietness of their consciences, particularly to open their sins to the Priest, to be offended with them that are satisfied with their humble confession to God, and the general confession to the Church.] I say these words (which are omitted in the second reformed Common-Prayer-Book, I suppose, as speaking too favourably of the use of Auricular Confession) do argue, that thenceforth no necessity of Sacerdotal Confession was imposed upon any, for any crime. Likewise in the Visitation of the Sick it is said; Here shall the sick person make a special confession, if he feel his conscience troubled with any weighty matter: which is also retained in the second Form of Common-Prayer. But here such Confession is commanded only hypothetically; not, if he have committed, but if his Conscience be troubled with, any weighty matter, which he hath committed. Which unfortunate [If,] as experience hath showed, quickly ruined the practice of Sacerdotal Confession. §. 156 [And indeed (with your leave to digress a little) when grievous sins are committed, this [If,] might well have been spared. For 1. every one, that hath committed such sin, as is supposed to have put him out of the State of Grace, and out of his Baptismal Regeneration (for which only the Church requires Sacerdotal Confession) either hath, or aught to have (and probably would have, if the Clergy taught him so) his Conscience troubled; till he hath obtained a new reconciliation to God, by those whom God hath appointed to do this office for him; 2. But if his private repentance, when this is done proportionably to his offence, is sufficient for his reconciliation; yet what grievous sinner, after much repentance, ought not still to be troubled concerning the unworthiness of it, till he hath consulted, in such an hazard, his spiritual Father much more knowing therein than himself? And then if all such aught to be troubled; all aught to confess. Indeed let's trouble of mind is many times a sign of less penitence; and, of such high offenders, those have most need of the Priest's cure, who are least troubled. And those who are least troubled, aught to be so much the more troubled, that they are so little troubled: and aught to go to the Priest and confess such sin, that he may excite them to greater trouble and sorrow for it, and may put them to some pain in searching their wound to the bottom, that so it may be more capable of cure. And on the other side; those, who in, and after long penitence, and even from all their life, are much troubled for such their crimes, are likely to be the best penitents; and consequently to have least need of Sacerdotal Confession for the examining of their repentance: which examination, and not consolation, I imagine, is the chief end and design of the Reformed's prescribing such Confession to those, who are troubled. 3. But then add to this; that when once such Sacerdotal Confession for great sinners is commanded by the Church (i. e. by a lawful superior Council) to be observed, as necessary, jure divino, or by divine Institution, Now, it comes to pass, that though such Confession were supposed not necessary to be observed or practised from any such divine institution; yet, after decreed by such a Council, (as who have authority to impose it also upon several other motives; from which they think it the most beneficial and the securest course for such sinners so to do;) it becomes necessary to be practised and observed as the Church's constitution, even by those, who think it not necessary jure divino. 4. But yet further; were not such Church-constitution in this respect obliging; yet when as a thing is so far disputable and doubtful, whether jure divino, as that such a judgement, as this of a superior Council, hath declared, it so; and whenas on the otherside we ourselves grant thus much, that such thing, if not necessary, is very beneficial, and may upon this title be lawfully enjoined by the Church's Superiors: reason will dictate here, that it is the most prudent way, both for the Subjects of a particular Church to observe it; and for the Superiors of such Church to enjoin it, upon pain of incurring their censures, to be observed. But now to return to our business.] CHAP. X. Of the Second Change of the Public Liturgy in his time. §. 157 ja setting forth a second Form of Common Prayer than which the first was in many things much more moderate. THus much concerning the Reformation made in the first new Form of the Public Service under King Edward, (to say nothing here of the first additions to the Mass made at Windsor) much more temperate, and less varying from the former Service than the present is; as ordinarily things do not on a sudden move from one extreme to another. In which Book also it is to be noted; that many of the alterations, which were made, were only omissions; As of the Sacrifice of the Mass; of Invocation of Saints; of Auricular Confession; of Elevation of the Eucharist (Adoration being not-prohabited) etc. without tying any to professing his faith to be contrary to such things as were omitted: which I impute to the wariness and moderation of some of the Composers, who retained a different persuasion from the rest. See before, §. 127. And again, that in it were many former usages of the Church still retained: which gave great offence to the foreign Reformers; and to other Precisians here, who had been nursed abroad under their Discipline. Amongst which usages retained may be numbered these. At the Communion, in the Prayer for the estate of the Church Catholic, a solemn Commemoration of the Saints, and other faithful departed, Fol. 128. (which was thought fit by the late Composers of the Scotch Liturgy to be restored again in part into the same Prayer; where is made a distinct and different Commemoration of other faithful deceased, and of the Saints deceased) Prayer for the dead, and that in the same manner, as formerly: See Burial of the dead, Folly 28. (as supposing some of them in a state purgative or betterable by such Prayers. See before, §. 147.) Exorcism [I command thee, unclean Spirit, that thou depart etc. Fol. 2.] and anction of Infants in Baptism. Fol. 4. Sanctifying, or Benediction of the Water in the Font before it be used in Baptism, Fol. 8. (resumed by the Scotch Liturgy.) Extrcam Unction also still retained. Consecrating only so much Bread and Wine, as shall suffice for the persons appointed to receive the Holy Communion. And mingling Water with the Wine. Fol. 126. Reservation of the Sacrament after public Communion to be carried home to the sick if there be any that day to be communicated (which reservation were it made for some longer time I see not how this difference can alter the lawfulness thereof. Visit. Sick. fol. 22. ) The quotidian Celebration of the Eucharist in all Cathedral and Collegiate Churrches as yet practised, though not enjoined. Fol. 21. See Ruhr. Fol. 123. The Altars still left in the same Position and with the same furniture, as formerly. The Communion-bread made in the same Figure as formerly, only to be somewhat thicker and without any print upon them. The same Holy Vestments, Albes, Copes, still retained. The Oblation made after Consecration, before receiving, spoken of before. And chief, the retaining still, in the Consecration and other passages of the Communion, all those former expressions of the Mass, which imply, whether by Trans- or Con-substantiation, a corporal presence. For such presence was not a thing declared against, till the Fifth year of King Edw. in Art. 28. [and then declared against upon this Philosophical reason: because ejusdem hominis corpus in multis locis simul esse non potest. But this part against real or corporal Presence, with its reason, was afterward thought fit to be cast out of this Article, when they were reviewed by Queen Elizabeth 's Synod 1562.] The Obligation of Henry the Eighth's Six Articles being voided, all persons in this point were then left, as it were, to their own opinion: amongst whom, as some were Zuinglians, so a major part seem to have been in the former days of King Edward either of the Roman, or Lutheran, persuasion. Neither is there any mention concerning the manner of Christ's Presence in the Eucharist in the Articles proposed to Winchester, or in any other of the King's Injunctions: and therefore Bonner and Gardiner (when forced to preach in public) to the great offence of some of their Auditors, made this the chief subject of their Sermons; and many, in the public Disputations had in Oxford and Cambridge about this matter, freely and ex animo maintained such corporal Presence. See before, §. 107. And Cranmer himself also for a long time was a Lutheran in his opinion, till at last he was otherwise persuaded by Ridley, Fox p. 1115. and p. 1703. Neither was there such agreement between Ridley and Peter Martyr at first: but that the one in the Oxford Disputations held a change after Consecration in the substance of the Bread and Wine; which the other denied in Cambridge. Fox p. 1255. §. 158 Thus stood things somewhat moderated in the first Form: In which second Book are rectified and removed many thing which gave offence in the former. against which therefore were made many complaints. Calvin writ to the Protector soon after it was set forth; where he incites him to a new Reformation thereof: and after having found fault with. Prayer for the Dead he goes on,— Sunt & alia non perinde damnanda fortasse, sed tamen ejusmodi, ut excusari non possint. Illa omnia abscindi semel praestiterit, ut nihil in Ecclesiâ Dei usurpetur, quod non & ipsius verbo conforme sit, & ad Ecclesiae aedificationem pertineat; ita verò tolerandi sunt infirmi, ut ad meliora promoveantur. After this, about 1551. Epistle, p. 135. he writ thus to Archbishop Cranmer.— Sic correctae sunt externae superstitiones, ut residui maneant innumeri surculi, qui assiduè pullulent. Imò ex corruptelis Papatus audio relictam esse congeriem, quae non obscuret modò, sed propemodum obruat purum & genuinum Dei cultum. Writ likewise to Bucer, than a Teacher of the reformed Religion in Cambridge, that he should solicit this matter; telling him that he was censured for too much moderation, and might thus free himself from such an aspersion. Epistle, p. 107.— Dominum Protectorem, ut volebas, conatus sum hortari, ut stagitabat praesens rerum status: tuum quoque erit modis omnibus instare, praesertim verbo; ut ritus, qui superstitionis aliquid redolent, tollant ur e medio. Hoc tibi nominatim commendo, 〈◊〉 te invidiâ liberes, quâ te falso gravar● apud multos non ignoras; nam modiis consiliis te vel authorem vel approbatorem semper inscribunt. Scio hanc quorundam animis suspicionem altius infixam ass, quam ut eam revellere facile sit, eciamfis nihil omittas. Bucer thus excited by Calvin, and also requested by Cranmer, having the Book translated in to Latin, An. 1551. writes a censure thereof; wherein he desireth the alteration or omission of many things (even to the disallowing of the use of the Surplice, and of such other vestments, as are there appointed; of saying of the second Service at the Altar; of the Presbyter's taking the bread in his hand, and the using of the sign of the Cross in the Consecration; besides greater matters, of praying for the dead etc.) Yet, of several of those things, which he would have to be changed, he confessed, both that they were ancient, and might in some manner be inculpably used, but yet thought it better that they should be removed: 1. because not appointed in Scripture by word or example: 2. because they might be, or also had been, abused'to superstition: 3. because the Church should partake as little as might be of the same usages with Antichrist. Bucer Censur. in Ordinat. Eccles. Angl. p. 458. 467. etc. §. 179 Upon such exceptions taken at the Liturgy, as well from abroad, as also by some of the preciser sort at home (saith Dr. Heylin, Reform, Justif. p. 31. and Hist. of Reform. p. 107.) and because there had risen divers doubts for the fashion and manner of the ministration of the said Service, rather by the curiosity of the Minister and mistakers, than of any other worthy cause (saith the Act of Parliament: itself, 5, 6. Edw. 6.1. c. which shows what a good opinion they had of the former Book) It was committed to be new corrected, but by what persons we know not. The Act, without any such Encomium of these Reviewers, as of the first Composers, faith only,— That the King caused it to be faithfully and godly perused, explained and made fully perfect. Perhaps it was corrected (which is one of Dr. Heylin's conjectures: See before, §. 42.) by those who were appointed by the King about this time to compose a Form of Ordination; which Form the Act joined with this new Service-Book. But it could not be done by the same persons, that composed the former, at least not by all of them; because, Day before this was ejected out of his Bishopric; and two more Ship and Holbeck, as I think, before this deceased; and Harley and Taylor were chosen their Successors. The thing matters not much-Thus corrected it was presented to the Parliament, and it only by them authorized to be used. §. 160 Which second Form (besides casting out several other things that were retained in the former; Among the rest, Prayer for the dead and several expressions that seemed to ●●ser the Rea●or Corporal Preseace in the Eucharist. as the Commemoration of Saints, and Prayer for the dead; many Rites in the Administration of Baptism; the liberty of extreme Unction; the Oblation and Prayers in the Communion; which were made immediately after Consecration, spoken-of before §. 148, 149.) above all seems to have taken a vigilant special care for the altering and removing out of the former Form all those passages, Which might, argue any real or corporal Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ (whether it be by Trans- or Con-substantiation, or any other way) with the Symbols. Whereas therefore, in the Prayer of Consecration, these words are in the Missal, Quam oblationem tu Deus in omnibus quaesumus benedictam acceptabilemque facere digneris, ut nobis Corpus & Sanguis fiat; dilectissimi Filii tui Domini Nostri Jesu Christi; and so in the first Form of King Edward these words, Hear us O Merciful Father, we beseech the: and with Holy Spirit and word vouchsafe to bl ✚ ess and sanc ✚ tify these thy gifts, and creatures of Bread md Wine, that they may be unto us the Body and Blood of thy most dearly beloved Son (Both the Missal and that Form ordering the person consecrating at this time to take both the Bread and the Cup into his hands): Instead of this, the second Form is thus changed, Hear us, O Merciful Father, we beseech thee, and▪ grant, that we▪ receiving these thy Creatures of Bread and Wine, according to thy Son our Saviour Jesus Christ's holy Institution; in remembrance of his Death and Passion, may be partakers of his most blessed Body and Blood (omitting also the Priests touching or handling the Patten or Chalice:) which is done according to Bucer's directions in his Censura p. 468. Whereby seems to be avoided the acknowledging of any Presence of Christ's Body and Blood with the Symbols; of which also Bucer saith, p. 476. Antichristianum est affirmare quicquam his elementis adesse Christi extra usum praebitionis & receptionis. For the same reason it seems to be, that the Glory be to God on high etc. and the Benedictus, qui venit in nomine Domini after the Sursum Corda, the one is transferred after the Communion; and the other, omitted. Likewise; whereas in the administering of these Mysteries, the Missal useth this Form, Corpus Domini Jesu Christi custodiat animam tuam in vitam aternam; and so also the first Book of King Edward the Second (as it were against the apprehending of any Real Presence to the Symbols, or any oral feeding on that Body) removeth those words, and placeth instead thereof only these: Take and eat this, in remembrance that Christ died for thee, and feed on him in thy heart by Faith with thankgiving: Again; Drink this in remembrance &c: So, whereas it is said in the first Form in the Player of humble access, Grant us so to eat the flesh of thy dear Son Jesus Christ, and to drink his blood in these holy Mysteries; the second omits [in these holy Mysteries.] Likewise, at the end of the Communion-Service is added this Rubric (declaring, that kneeling at the participation of the Sacrament is required? for a signification of the humble acknowledging of the benefits of Christ given therein unto the worthy receiver; and not, for giving any adoration to the Sacramental Bread and Wine there bodily received; or in regard of any real or essential Presence of Christ's natural Body and Blood.) Whereas it's ordained in the Administration of the Lord's Supper, that the Communicants kneeling should receive the Holy Communion, which thing is well meant for a signification of the humble and grateful acknowledging of the benefits of Christ given unto the worthy receiver, and to avoid the profanation and disorders which about the Holy Communion might else ensue: Lest yet the same kneeling might be thought or taken otherwise, we do declare that it is not meant thereby, that any Adoration is done or aught to be done either unto the Sacramental Bread or Wine there bodily received, or unto any real and essential Presence there being of Christ's natural Flesh and Blood. For as concerning the Sacramental Bread and Wine, they remain still in their natural substances, and therefore may not be adored; for that were Idolatry. And as concerning the natural Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ, they are in heaven and not here: for it is against the truth of Christ's true natural Body to be in more places than one at one time. Thus that Rubric; thought fit to be omitted in the Common-Prayer-Book of Queen Elizabeth; of which see the Reason below § 179. n. 2. Accordingly the Altar was changed into a Table (the sides whereof were set North and South) set near the Reading-place; ordered, at the Communion time, to be covered with a fair white Linen Cloth; the other vestments prohibited; save only a Surplice for a Priest, and Rochet for a Bishop; and to take away all Superstition, the Communion Bread appointed to be such as is usually eaten at the Table; but the purest of that sort that can conveniently be had, See the Rubrics of King Edward's secondCommon Prayer-Book Fol. 126. And Visita, S ck Fol. 22. And lastly; whereas the first gives caution, §. 161 that so much Bread and Wine shall be consecrated, Where Concerning the reduction of something● touching this Presence made in the new Liturgy for Scotland to K. Edw. fr●st Form. as shall suffice for the persons appointed to receive the Holy Communion; except some shall be reserved for the Communion of the Sick: The second omits any such caution; ordering only, that the Curate have the remains to his own use. But the new Liturgy composed for Scotland, well discerning what these alterations aimed at, reduceth all things to the former way; restores those words in the Consecration [with thy holy spirit and word etc. that They may be unto us the Body etc.] ordering (again) the Presbyter, that officiates, to take the Patten and Chalice in his hands; and leaving out also the caution of non-elevation, which was inserted, in the first Book of King Edward: removes the words added in the delivering of the Mysteries [Take and eat this etc.] and instead thereof adds aster the former words the people's response [Amen] according to the custom of Antiquity (See Dionys. Alexand. apud Euseb. Histor. 7. l. 8. c. Leo Serm. 6. de jejunio 7. mensis. August. ad Orosium quaest. 49.) spoken as a Confession of their Faith, that they acknowledged that which they received to be Corpus Domini. Lastly requires him that officiates, that he consecrate Bread and Wine with the least, to the end there may be little left; and that what is left be not carried out of the Church, but reverently eaten and drunk by such of the Communicants▪ only, as the Presbyter, that celebrates, shall take unto him. §. 162 All this could not pass the Observation of the Scotchman, who in the Laudensium Autocatacrisis, Much complained of 〈◊〉 Laudensium Autocatacrisis p. 107. thus censures it. In the next Prayer, saith he, [i. e. that of Consecration] are put in the words of the Mass, whereby God is besought by his omnipotent Spirit so to sanctify the Oblations of Bread and Wine, that they may become to us Christ's Body and Blood. From these words all Papists use to draw the truth of their Transubstantiation; wherefore the English Reformers [i. e. the lattor] scraped them out of their Books; but our men put them fairly in. And good reason have they so to do. For long ago they professed, that, about the Presence of Christ's Body and Blood in the Sacrament after Consecration, they are fully agreed with Lutherans and Papists; except only about the formality and mode of Presence [here quoting Mountag. Appeal, p. 289.] They make an express Rubric for the Priest's taking the Patin, and the Chalice in his hand in the time of Consecration. Which taking, not being either for his own participation, or the distribution to others, why shall we not understand the end of it to be, that which the Mass there enjoins, their Elevation and Adoration? The Elevation being long ago practised by some of our Bishops; and Adoration, when the Patin and Chalice are taken in the Priest's hands, avowed by Heylin's Answ. to Burt. p. 137. The English indeed, in giving the Elements to the people, retain the Mass-words; but to prevent any mischief, Autocat. p. 111. that could arise in the people's mind from their sound of a Corporal Presence, they put in at the distribution of both the Elements, two Golden Sentences: of the hearts eating by Faith; of the Soul's drinking in remembrance. But our men, being nothing afraid for the people's belief of a Corporal Presence, have pulled out of their hands, and scraped out of our Book, both these Antidotes. And the Mass-words thus quit of the English Antidotes must not stand in our Book simply: but that the people may take extraordinary notice of these Phrases, there are two Rubrics set up to their backs, obliging every Communicant with their own mouth to say their Amen to them. The English permit the Curate to carry home the relics of the Bread and Wine, for his private use: but such Profanity by our Book is discharged. The Consecrate Elements are enjoined to be eaten in the Holy place, by the Priest alone, and some of the Communicants that day: yea, for preventing of all dangers, a cautel is put in, that so few Elements, as may, be consecrate. And our Book will have the Elements after the Consecration covered with a Corporal etc. §. 163 Thus the first Form, both when first established in King Edward's, and when revived in King Charles' time, found many Adversaries. But did the new one escape any better? No. For when all these offensive things in the second draught were amended according to several preciser fancies; yet neither so did the second content all palates, for the humour of Innovation knoweth no bounds. Soon after it was framed, as the chief body of the Clergy under Queen Mary deserted both it, and the former, and returned to the old Church-Service; so the English Protestants, that were then dispersed abroad at Frankford in Germany, fell into great dissensions about it: as some for, so many against, it. See a fuller relation in Heylin's Hist of Reform. in Queen Mary. p. 59 etc. And Calvin hearing the noise thereof, as he had formerly used his Pen to the Protector &c, against the first Book; so now doth he to the English in Frankford, Calvin Ep. p. 213. against the second; saying, In Anglicanâ Liturgiâ qualem describitis [i. e. the new one, which some of them then used at Frankford] mult as video fuisse tolerabiles ineptias. Sic ergo a talibus rudimentis incipere licuit, ut doctos tamen & graves Christi ministros ultra eniti & aliquid limatius ac purius quaerere consentaneum foret. Si hactenus in Anglia viguisset sincera religio, aliquid in melius correctum multaque detracta esse oportuit. Nunc cum, eversis illis princtpiis, alibi instituenda vobis sit Ecclesia & liberum sit formam de integro componere [he thinks it seems any Pastors have power to make to themselves new Liturgies] quid sibi velint nescio, quos faecis Papisticae reliquiae tantopere delectant. Amant ea quibus assueti sunt? Hoc nugatorium & puerile est; etc. Thus Calvin. And so Bucer likewise in his censure of the first (who died within a few weeks after he had writ it, before the compiling of the second) hath blamed many things that remain in the second. After Queen Mary's death, the second Book being restored here again to its former authority, many of the more zealous Reformists, both by words and writings, made such opposition against it, that Queen Elizabeth, in terrorem, executed two for this cause: See before, §. 65. and caused Archbishop Whitgift to exact of all those, that entered into the Clergy, a Subscription that they would use it, and no other Form. Cambd▪ Eliz. An. Dom. 1583. Ecclesiastical Can. 36. Which Subscription (the party that opposed this Book at last prevailing) was remitted by the Parliament 1640; and, since that, I need not tell you what it hath suffered. The old Form supplanted the Mass; the pew Form the old; and then the old one being raised again out of its ashes in the new Scotch Liturgy (which began all the troubles) had almost brought, in the late tumults, a fatal overthrow both upon the new one and upon itself. Thus much from §. 143. concerning this King's new Liturgies. §. 164 By virtue of such a Supremacy, the King conceiving he had power to alter and reform the Ecclesiastical Laws, In the abrogatio▪ of several Ecclesiastical law, co●●e●ning Fast●, C●l●bacy of the Cle●gy etc. though established by former superior Councils, appointed (the Parliament assenting thereto) eight persons (amongst whom were two Bishop's Crannier and Thirlby, and Peter Martyr) to prepare this work: Who drew up a body of them; which was then made public, and since, reprinted 1640. But indeed it appeareth not, that this Reformation of them was ever ratified by King, Parliament, or Convocation. See the Preface to Reform. Leg. Eccl. By such Supremacy he abrogated all former Church-laws concerning days of fasting or abstinence: and appointed those he thought fit, by his own and the Parliaments authority; and dispensed with whom he thought fit, for not observing them. See Stat. 2, 3. Edw. 19 chap. Wherein after a Preface declaring, That the King's Subjects now had a more perfect and clear light of the Gospel and true word of God shown, declared and opened, thro' the mercy of God, by the hands of the King's Majesty, and his most noble Father; and thereby perceived, that one day or meat of itself is not more holy, more pure, or more clean, than another etc. [as if the former Church, which they left, had taught them otherwise] after this Preface, I say, the King with the consent of Parliament first ordains, That all manner of Statutes, Laws and Constitutions concerning any manner of fasting, or abstinence from any kinds of meats, shall, from the first of May next ensuing, lose their force and strength, and be void and of none effect. Then sets down the days upon which he will have abstinence from flesh observed, upon the Penalty of paying Ten Shillings, and suffering ten days Imprisonment; except those, who being not enfeebled with age or sickness, shall receive a licence to eat flesh from the King or his Successors. For you must know, that the maker of a Law hath power to dispense with it. But here note, that only abstinence from flesh is enjoined on those days by this Statute; not Fasting: nor is Fasting enjoined by any other Statute that I can find; save only on Holy-day-Eves, by a Statute made two or three years after. Stat. 5, 6. Edw. 6.3. ●. Neither is there any obligation for the observation of either fasting or abstinence on these days, by any express Canon of this Church reform (when as now the former Church-Laws concerning this were by the King's Supremacy nulled in this Act;) but only, by Act of Parliament; and the end of such abstinence, in the Parliament, Act 5. Eliz. 5. c. professed to be only upon a Politic consideration, the increase of Fishermen and Mariners, etc. And not for any Superstition (saith that Act) to be maintained in the choice of meats or, as if such forbearing of flesh were of any necessity for the saving of the Soul of man; or, that it is the Service of God, otherwise, than as other Politic Laws are and be. Tho King Edward in the forecited Statute, I confess, mentions partly another end: viz. because that due and godly abstinence is a means to virtue, and to subdue men's bodies to their Soul and Spirit; And I doubt not, that many devout persons in this Church holding themselves bounden to the former Ecclesiastical Constitutions, notwithstanding the King's abrogation, have still observed this duty in obedience thereto. See likewise 5, 6. Edw. 6. 3. c. the same Regal authority appointing the holidays. And these things are done in Parliament, without the least mentioning or referring to any Synod. §. 165 Likewise by virtue of such Supremacy, the King with consent of Parliament ordained, Sta●. 2, 3. Edw 6.21. c. That all Laws positive, Canons, Constitutions heretofore made by man only, which prohibit Marriage to any Spiritual Person, who by God's Law may lawfully marry, shall be utterly void and of none effect: and this upon consideration (as it is in the Preface of the same Act) of such uncleanness of living and other great inconveniences which have followed of compelled chastity [as if the Church compelled any person to such chastity; except hypothetically, if he will take on him such a profession. Or as if in this the Church enjoined any thing, which she first stated not to be in every one's power to observe, if using a just endeavour?] Now whereas it is said, in 5.6. Edw. 6.12. That the slanderous reproach of holy Matrimony [i. e. of Priests] doth redound to the dishonour of the Clergy of this Realm; who have determined the same [Marriage of Clergy] to be most lawful by the Law of God, in their Convocation, as well by their common assent, as by the subscription of their hands: Such assent, as likewise that which they say to the same purpose in the 42 Articles Art. 31. no way opposeth the Law of the Church. For things most lawful by God's Law (as Marriage of the Clergy is, by the Church, allowed to be) yet may be lawfully prohibited by the Church: Whose Law in this matter the Clergy of this land justified in the third and fourth of the Six Articles. Neither, if they had here opposed it (as they do not) would their sentence be of any force; because contrary to the Constitution of former superior Councils. §. 166 By virtue of such Supremacy, the King in the Sixth year of his Reign published by his authority 42 Articles of Religion, containing several matters of Faith, Lastly, In the Edition of 42 Articles of Religion different from the fo●mer dect●●●e● of the Church. which are there stated contrary to the definitions of former superior Councils. Which Articles are said indeed to have been first decreed and agreed on by a Synod of the Clergy held at London; the Title presixed to them being this, Articuli, de quibus in Synodo London. An. Dom. 1552. ad tollendam opinionum dissensionem & consensum verae religionis firmandum inter Episcopos & alios eruditos viros convenerat, regiâ authoritate in lucem editi. But this I cannot thus easily concede, Where whether these Articles were passed by any Synod. notwithstanding this Title. Thus far indeed I grant; that they seem to be compiled or consented to by some members of that Synod, whom the King after the Synod had appointed (the Synod leaving this business to him) to draw up such Ecclesiastical Laws: and so I grant that de illis convenerat inter Episcopos & alios eruditos viros qui erant pars aliqua Synodi London. But that these Articles were published, established, or passed by that Synod, I think there is good reason to deny, from these relations which follow. §. 167 Where I will first transcribe you, what Mr. Fuller, Hist. Eccles. 7. l. p 420. who had perused the Records concerning it, saith of this Synod or Convocation. As for the Records of this Convocation (saith he) they are but one degree above blanks, scarce affording the names of the Clerks assembled therein (for which see also Heylin's Hist. of Reform. King Edw. p. 121.) Indeed they had no Commission from the King to meddle with Church-business; and no Convocation can hear complaints in Religion, nor speak in redress thereof, till a Commission be granted unto it from Regal authority. Now the true reason, why the King would not entrust the diffusive body of the Convocation with a power to meddle with matters of Religion, was a just jealousy, which he had, of the ill-affection of the major part thereof; who, under a fair rind of Protestant Profession, had the rotten core of Roman Superstition. It was therefore conceived safer for the King to rely on the ability and fidelity of some select confidents cordial to the cause of Religion, than to adventure the same to be discussed and decided by a suspected Convocation. However this barren Convocation is entitled the Parent of those Articles of Religion, 42 in number, which are printed with this Preface; Articuli, de quibus etc. as is recited before. With these Articles was bound a Catechism, younger in age, as bearing date of the next year, but of the same extract, relating to this Convocation as Author thereof. Indeed it was first compiled, as appears in the King's Patent prefixed, by a single Divine (charactered pious and learned:) but afterwards perused and allowed by the Bishops and other learned men (understand it the Convocation;) and by Royal authority commended to all Subjects, commanded to all School-Matters to teach their Scholars. Yet very few in the Convocation ever saw it; much less explicitly consented thereunto. But these had formerly, it seems, passed over their power to the select Divines appointed by the King. In which sense they may be said to have done it themselves by their Delegates, to whom they had deputed their authority. A case not so clear, but that it occasioned a Cavil, at the next Convocation in the first of Queen Mary: When the Papists [i. e. all the Convocation save six persons] therein assembled renounced the legality of any such former Transactions. Thus Mr. Fuller, one interessed in this matter on the other side. §. 168 Next, if you would know the questioning of this Catechism (to which as well as the Articles, was pretended the name of the Synod) and the answer returned thereto; In the Relation made thereof in Fox p. 1282. thus speaks the Prolocutor Dr. Weston to the Convocation concerning it: For that (saith he) there is a Book of late set forth; called the Catechism, bearing the name of this Honourable Synod [i. e. the last which sat;] and yet put forth without their consents, as I have learned, being a Book very pestiferous and full of Heresies; and likewise a Book of Common Prayer, very abominable: I have thought it therefore best, first to begin with the Articles of the Catechism, concerning the Sacrament of the Altar, to confirm the natural Presence of Christ in the same, and also Transubstantiation. [for which conference the next Friday being appointed] Then (saith the relation) the Prolocutor exhibited two Bills unto the House; (The one, for [the forementioned Article of the Catechism] the natural Presence of Christ in the Sacrament of the Altar; the other concerning the Catechism; that it was not by that House's agreement [formerly] set forth; and that they did not [for the present] agree thereunto) requiring all them to subscribe to the same; as he himself had done. Whereunto the whole House did immediately assent; except six. Jo. Philpot [one of the six Renegers] stood up and spoke first concerning the Catechism; That he thought, they were deceived in the Title of the Catechism, in that it beareth the Title of the Synod of London last before this; although many of them, which then were present, were never made privy thereof in setting it forth: for that this house had granted the authority to make Ecclesiastical Laws unto certain persons to be appointed by the King's Majesty; and whatsoever Ecclesiastical Laws they or the most part of them did set forth, 3, 4. Edw. 6.11, c. according to a Statute in that behalf provided, it might well be said to be done in the Synod of London; although such as be of the House now had no notice thereof before the promulgation. And that in this point he thought the setter-forth thereof nothing to have slandered the House, as they by their Subscription went about to persuade the world; since they (saith he) had our Synodal authority committed unto them to make such Spiritual Laws, as they thought convenient and necessary. This concerning the questioning of this Catechism and Articles in the beginning of Queen Mary's days; and the Answer returned thereto. But to clear the matter a little further; We find in the same Fox p. 1704, after this, Archbishop Cranmer, in his trial before the Commissioners at Oxford, (Brooks Bishop of Gloucester and others) charged amongst other things with being the Author of this Catechism and Articles, and with compelling men against their wills to subscribe them; the former of which he there confesseth; but denyeth the latter. The words in Fox are,— 7th Interrog. Item. That the said Tho. Cranmer did fly and recuse the authority of the Church; did hold and follow the Heresy concerning the Sacrament of the Altar, and also did compile and caused to be set abroad divers Books. Answer. Whereunto when the names of the Books were recited to him he denied not such Books, which he was the true Author of. As touching the Treatise of Peter Martyr upon the Sacrament, he denied that he ever saw it before it was abroad; yet did approve and well like of the same. As for the Catechism, the Book of Articles, with the other Book against Winchester he granted the same to be his do. 8th Interrog. Item, That he compelled many against their wills to subscribe to the same Articles. Answer. He exhorted (he said) such as were willing to subscribe: but against their wills he compelled none. §. 169 Having given you these three relations, now to reflect a little on them. First, if you well consider the words in the Title of the Articles, de quibus inter Episcopos & alios eruditos viros etc. they seem not the ordinary expresion of a Synodal Act which runs more generally; as thus [de quibus convenit inter Archiepiscopos, Episcopos, & Clerum universum] or the like. Next, you may observe, that though the Prolocutor in the Synod 1ᵒ Mariae questioneth, and Philpot answereth concerning the Catechism, why it should be published in the name of the Synod; yet they both speak, not of the Catechism taken by itself; but only of the Articles which were first printed at the end of this Catechism, and bound up with it; which the Prolocutor therefore calls the Articles of the Catechism, and proposeth the matter of the 28th of these Articles for disputation; and so also calleth them the Catechism, because the first title of this Book is Catechismus brevis etc. Now that they must speak of the Articles is plain; because the Catechism as taken by itself is not at all entitled to the Synod; but only the Articles at the end thereof. The Title of the Catechism is only this Catechismus brevis Christianae disciplinae summam continens omnibus Ludimagistris authoritate regiâ commendatus. Neither do those words in Philpot's Answer [that the house had committed their Synodal authority to certain persons to be appointed by the King to make such Ecclesiastical Laws as they thought convenient etc.] agree at all to this Catechism; but to the Articles only. For this Catechism was made before by a private person (that is, by the Archbishop, if we may believe his own confession related above) and afterward approved only by some Bishops and other eruditi viri, as the King saith in the Preface thereof. Cum brevis & explicata Catechismi ratio a pio quodam & erudito viro conscripta nobis ad cognoscendum offerretur, ejus diligentem inquisitionem quibusdam episcopis & aliis eruditis commisimus, quorum judicium magnam apud nos authoritatem habet; & quia conveniens cum scriptures etc. visa est, placuit non solum eum in aspectum lucemque proffer, sed etiam propter perspicuitatem omnibus ludorum magistris ad docendum proponere etc. Neither is this Catechism abstracted from the Articles any such pestiferous Book, or so full of Heresies, as the Prolocutor complains of; being composed in general terms for Schoolboys; and not stating, scarce touching, any controversy. Add to this, that, though the Catechism was not made by the Synod, yet if the 42 Articles that were then printed and bound with the Catechism, were framed by it; neither had the Prolocutor any reason to have fallen upon and gotten hands against the Catechism, as being falsely ascribed to that Reverend Assembly, (when as, that, which was far more opposite to that which he accounted the Orthodox Religion, (namely these Articles) were known to be passed by them;) Neither would Philpot have concealed this matter; since this known Act of the Synod composing these Articles would have justified that Act of the Delegates composing the Catechism; for the Doctrine of the Catechism is contained in the Articles. But, if by this Catechism both the Prolocutor and Philpot meant the Articles at the end thereof, (as it cannot be otherwise) than Philpot hath revealed to us all the truth concerning the composing or ratifying of them; and why, in the impression, they were ascribed to the Synod: Namely because the Synod had given authority to those the King should nominate, to make Ecclesiastical Laws; and so by those persons (being Episcopi. & alii eruditi viri) were these Articles compiled or confirmed; the Synod it seems leaving both this matter, and the election of the persons for doing of it to the King's care, without reserving any review thereof to themselves, contrary to the First, Second and Sixth Theses. But Mr. Philpot discovers the motive which this Synod (if he meant this, and not some former Synod) might have to do this, when he mentions a former Act of Parliament, 3, 4. Edw. 6.11. c. enstating the King in this power; which Act was made two years before the Session of this Synod: but then this is somewhat strange, that what was acknowledged (formerly) as the King's right, is (now) made by Mr. Philpot the Clergy's concession to him. Thus then were these Articles made, not by, but after, the Synod: and this is the reason, why though the production of such a Body of Articles would have been by much the solemnest Act of a Synod, that was done in King Edward's days; yet both the Records and the Historians, Fox, Godwin, Antiquitates Britanicae, and those others, that I have seen▪ are silent therein. And the Archbishop, to whom it would have been an excellent defence, to have showed them, though of his compiling, yet to have been confirmed and generally subscribed by such a full Synod; yet he also pleads no such thing. And hence we may learn the reason of that which Dr. Heylin observeth p. 25. That though a Parliament was held at this very time, and that this Parliament had passed several Acts, which concerned Church-matters, as, an Act for Uniformity of Divine Service, and for the Confirmation of the Book of Ordination 5, 6. Edw. 6.1. c. An Act declaring, holidays, and which for Fasting-days. 3. c. An Act against striking or drawing any weapon in the Church, or Church-yard. 4. c. An Act for the legitimating of the Marriages of Priests. 12. c.: Yet neither in this Parliament (saith he) nor in that which followed, is there so much as the least Syllable which reflecteth this way, or meddleth any thing at all with the Book of Articles. Thus Dr. Heylin. Which Observation, as to him it affords an Argument, that Religion reform in these Articles therefore can be called no Parliament-Religion; so to me, that it was also no Synodal-Religion: because we see the Parliaments in King Edward's time corroborating or rather preventing the Synod in all other Transactions about the Reformation. See before, §. 47. Neither can it be said improper to the Parliament to enjoin obedience to these, as well as it had done to other Church- or Synod-decrees. §. 170 If it be urged here, what Philpot urged of the Catechism, that these Articles are Synodical; because the Synod conceded to the King the election of such persons, who should frame and publish these Articles, without any communicating them first to the Synod: See the Answer returned to this before, §. 42. CHAP. XI. The Actings of Queen Elizabeth in Ecclesiastical Affairs: And of the unlawful Ejection of the Catholics. §. 171 HAving thus from §. 104. viewed the course of the Reformation under King Edward; 3. The Acting of Qu. El●z. in Ecclesiastical matters. now I pass to that under Queen Elizabeth, one much interessed to renew an opposition to the Pope; in as much as his pronouncing King Henry's Marriage with Anne Bullen her Mother unlawful, invalidated her Title to the Crown. Upon which Mary the Queen of Scots a Catholic, All the former decrees of the Clergy in King Henry and Edw. days being reversed by the Clergy i● Q. Mary's d●ys newly married to the Dauphin of France, and animated by the Pope, did also assume unto herself the Style and Title of Queen of England (as Cousin and next Heir to Queen Mary deceased) quartering the Arms thereof upon all her Plate and Escutcheons. Only let me first mind you this concerning Queen Mary's Reign that lieth between; That whatever the Reformation had built upon any Synodal vote under Henry the Eighth, or Edward the Sixth, was now revoked and demolished under Queen Mary, by the like Synods of a legal Clergy; as is showed before §. 52. The Supremacy in Ecclesiastical matters was re-acknowledged by this National Synod, now, not due to the Civil, but to the Ecclesiastical, Chief Governor, the Bishop of Rome, the Patriarch of the West: yet not challenged by him in so high a degree, as these Princes used it. The Six Articles, established by Synod in Henry the Eighth's days, as also the ancient Church Liturgy, ancient Form of Ordination, ancient way of Trial of Heretics, ancient Canons &c, were now by the like Synodal power again restored, and reinforced. See before, §. 48. So that the Reformation under Queen Elizabeth was to begin upon a new foundation, without grounding any plea upon any Synodal Act or consent of the Clergy made in King Henry or King Edward s days; either concerning the new Supremacy, or the new Liturgy, or the new 42 Articles of Religion, &c: since all these were by the same Synodal authority in Queen Mary's days desclaimed. Here seemeth no evasion: If we accept the decrees of later Synods, rather than of former; then Queen Mary's Synods will void King Henry's and King Edward's: But if of former Synods, rather than of later; then the Synods of Henry the Eighth, and of former times for the Six Articles etc. will void King Edward's and Queen Elizabeth's too. §. 172 And here first, concerning the course which Queen Elizabeth took in repairing the Reformation defaced by Queen Mary, Dr. Heylin speaks thus of it in general. Reform. Justified, p. 37. In Queen Elizabeth's time (saith he) before the new Bishops were well settled, and the Queen assured of the affections of her Clergy, She went that way to work in her Reformation, which not only her two Predecessors, but all the godly Kings and Princes in the Jewish State, and many of the Christian Emperors in the Primitive times, had done before her; in the well ordering of the Church and People committed to their care and government by God. And to that end she published her Injunctions An. Dom. 1559. A Book of Orders 1561. Another of Advertisements 1562. all tending unto the Reformation; with the advice and counsel of the Metropolitan [him, that was first ordained so by her appointment] and some other godly Prelates, who were then about her: by whom they were agreed on, and subscribed unto, before they were presented to her. But when the times were better settled, and the first difficulties of her Reign passed over; she left Church work to the disposing of Churchmen, who by their place and calling were most proper for it: and they being met in Convocation, and thereto authorized, as the Laws required, did make and publish several Books of Canons etc. Thus the Doctor. The brief of which is, That Queen Elizabeth did the Church-work at first herself without any Synodal authority of the Churchmen (as not being assured of their affection) till she had settled new Churchmen according to her mind; and then she did Church-work, by Churchmen. §. 173 This testimony premised concerning her proceed in general. H●r calling of a Synod which declareth against the Reformation. Now to mention some particulars which are of the most note. In the beginning of her Reign the Queen together with a Parliament called also a Synod; in which Bonner Bishop of London, in the vacancy of the Archbishopric of Canterbury, was Precedent; and Dr. Harpsfield was Prolocutor for the inferior Clergy. But this Synod continued in the former resolutions made under Queen Mary; and remained inflexible to the Queen's inclinations, and the Reformation: nay, declared against it. The full relation of which Synod I will give you out of Mr. Fuller's History 9 l. p. 54. (who copied it out of Lib. Synod, 1559.) because though somewhat long, yet it is very remarkable. The Convocation at this time (saith he) was very small and silent. For as it is observed in nature, when one twin is of an unusual strength and bigness, the other born with him is weak and dwindleth away: So here, this Parliament being very active in matters of Religion, the Convocation, younger brother thereunto, was little employed, less regarded. Yet in it; in the lower House of Convocation were passed over certain Articles of Religion; which they tendered to the Bishops, that they might present them to the Parliament. The Bishops likewise by their Precedent Bishop Bonner presented them to the Lord Keeper. Likewise in the tenth Session of this Convocation an account was given in by both the Universities in an Instrument under the hand of a public Notary; wherein, they, both, did concur to the truth of the foresaid Articles the last only excepted. §. 174 The Articles together with their Preface are these, which (saith he) we here both transcribe and translate (copied by me out of the Original) considering, they are the last in this kind, that ever were represented in England by a legal Corporation in defence of the Popish Religion. §. 175 Reverendi in Christo Patres ac Domini Colendissimi. Quoniam, famâ publicâ referente, ad nostram nuper notitiam pervenit, multa religionis christianae dogmata publico & unanimi gentium christianarum consensu hactenus recepta & probata, atque ab Apostolis ad nos usque concorditer per manus deducta, praesertim Articulos infra scriptos, in dubium vocari: Hinc est, quod nos Cantuariensis Provinciae inferior secundarius Clerus in uno (Deo sic disponente, ac Seren. Dominae nostrae Reginae, Decani & Capituli Cant. mandato, Brevi Parliament, ac monitione ecclesiasticâ solitâ declatatâ id exigente) convenientes, partium nostrarum esse existimavimus, tum nostrae, tum eorum, quorum curae nobis committitur, saluti, omnibus quibus poterimus modis prospicere. Quocirca majorum nostrorum exemplis commoti, qui in similia saepè tempora inciderunt, fidem, quam in Articulis infra scriptis veram esse credimus, & ex animo profitemur, ad Dei laudem & honorem, officiique, & aliarum nostrae curae commissarum animarum exonerationem, praesentibus duximus publicè afferendam, affirmantes, & sicut Deus nos in die Judicii adjuvet, asserentes. 1. Quod in Sacramento Altaris, virtute Christi verbo suo a Sacerdote debitè prolato assistentis, praesens est realiter sub speciebus Panis & Vini naturale Corpus Christi conceptum de Virgin Mariâ. Item naturalis ejus Sanguis. 2. Item. Quod post Consecrationem non remanet substantia panis & vini, neque ulla alia substantia, nisi substantia Dei & Hominis. 3. Item. Quod in Missâ offertur verum Christi Corpus & verus ejusdem Sanguis, Sacrificium propitiatorium pro vivis & defunctis. 4. Item. Quod Petro Apostolo & ejus legitimis Successoribus in Sede Apostolicâ tanquam Christi vicario data est suprema potestas pascendi & regendi ecclesiam Christi militantem, & fratres suos confirmandi. 5. Item. Quod authoritas tractandi & definiendi de iis quae spectant ad fidem, Sacramenta, & disciplinam ecclesiasticam, hactenus semper spectavit, & spectare debet tantum ad pastors ecclesiae, quos Spiritus Sanctus in hoc, in ecclesiâ Dei, posuit; & non ad Laicos [In which Article (penned with some tender sense of the invasion which formerly in King Henry and King Edward's days had been made upon the Clergy-rights) both the Regal and Parliamentary power being excluded totally by a [tantum ad pastors] not only a definiendo, but a tractando, not only quae ad fidem, but quae ad disciplinam ecclesiasticam spectant, I suppose made the University so cautious to subscribe thereto.] Quam nostram assertionem, affirmationem & fidem nos inferior Clerus praedistus vestris Paternitatibus tenore praesentium exhibemus; humiliter supplicantes, ut quia nobis non est copia hanc nostram sententiam & intentionem aliter illis, quorum in hac parte interest, notificandi, Vos, qui Patres estis, ista superioribus ordinibus significare velitis. Quâ in re officium charitatis ac pietatis (ut arbitramur) praestabitis, & saluti gregis vestri, ut par est, prospicietis, & vestras ipsi animas liberabitis. §. 176 These were the last words and testament as it were of the ancient Clergy now expiring; seeing their definitive authority assumed by the Laity, and, upon this, a flood of innovations coming upon them. Which Protestation of theirs remaineth upon record to all generations, to show, that, in the Reformation, the Laity deserted their former Guides, and Spiritual Fathers the Clergy, in Henry the Eighth's, and Queen Mary's days, all constant to the ancient Church-doctrines (saving only Supremacy for King Henry's time;) and also in King Edward's days, the major part of this Clergy, though externally guilty of some dissimulation, yet inwardly retaining the same judgement, as may be seen by what is acknowledged above §. 122. etc. and 127. §. 177 This Declaration of the Clergy and Universities was ended in the Queen's proposal of a Disputation in Westminster Church, A Disputation between the Bishops and the reformed Divines. between some of the Bishops and others of Queen Mary's Clergy, and some of the reformed Divines lately returned home from beyond Sea. Of which Disputation the Lord Keeper Bacon, one of the Protestant Religion, was appointed the Moderator. The three Questions which were proposed by the reforming party to the Bishops to be the subject of the Conference were these, 1. It is against the word of God, and the Custom of the ancient Church to use a tongue unknown to the people in Common-Prayer, Fox p. 1924. and the administration of the Sacraments. 2. Every Church hath authority to appoint, take away and change Ceremonies and Ecclesiastical Rites, so the same be to edification. 3. It cannot be proved by the word of God, that there is in the Mass offered up a Sacrifice propitiatory for the quick and dead. Of which questions to pass by the first (there being nothing either in the former Convocation-Articles, or in any decree of former Church, against the lawfulness of having the Divine Service in a known tongue; which is all that the Reformation desires in this matter; and which could be no occasion of difference among Christians, were all other Controversies of Doctrine well composed.) In the second Question, it seems to me somewhat strange; that, whereas the Convocation speaks chief of the authority of defining points de fide; and contends, that the authority of defining such points belongs not to the Laity, or to any Civil Power, but only add pastors; and whereas also the main of the Reformation consists in altering such Doctrines belonging to Faith, and not in altering some Rites and Ceremonies: yet the question here stretcheth no further than to Rites and Ceremonies; and then speaks of these as alterable, not by the Laity, or a Civil Power, but by a particular Church; i. e. as I suppose, by the Clergy thereof. And then leaves us in the dark also; whether this particular Church be put here as contradistinct only to other particular Churches, on which it is independent, and hath this power granted to it by all: or be put as contradistinct to the Church, Universal, or to Superior Councils; on which surely it hath some dependence. Again; in the last question, it seems as strange; that, whereas the Convocation in their Preface found'st this Article together with the rest on Primitive and Apostolical Tradition, as well as on Scripture: Publico christianarum gentium consensu etc. atque ab Apostolis add not usque &c. And whereas the reformed, in the first question, (where seemed some advantage) add the custom of ancient Church to the testimony of the Scriptures; and in their Preface promise adherence to the Doctrines and Practice of the Catholic Church (unless there be some evasion in the limitation there used, Fox p. 1930. where they say, by Catholic Church they mean that Church which ought to be sought in the holy Scriptures, and which is governed and led by the Spirit of Christ:) Yet here they use that restraining Clause [it cannot by the word of God be proved;] the judgement of the ancient Church, the authoritative expounder of the word of God, being indeed in this matter very clear against them. See Discourse of Eucharist, §. 92.111, etc. §. 178 If you would know, what end this Disputation had, it is thus set down in Cambden, Hist. Eliz. An. Dom. 1559. That all came to nothing: for that, after a few words passed to and fro in writing, they could not agree about the manner of disputing. The Protestants triumphing, as if they had gotten the victory; and the Papists complaining, that they were hardly dealt withal, in that they were not forewarned of the questions above a day or two before: and that Lord Keeper Bacon (a man little versed in matters of Divinity, and a bitter enemy of the Papists) sat as Judge, whereas he was only appointed as Moderator, or keeper of Order. But the very truth is; that they weighing the matter more seriously durst not, without consulting the Bishop of Rome, call in question so great matters, and not controverted in the Church of Rome; exclaiming every where: When shall there be any certainry touching Faith? Disputations concerning Religion do always bend that way as the Sceptres incline: and such like. And so hot were the Bishops of Lincoln and Winchester, that they thought meet, that the Queen and the Authors of this falling away from the Church of Rome should be stricken with the censure of Excommunication. But the wiser sort resolved, that this censure was rather to be left to the Bishop of Rome; lest they, being Subjects, should seem to shake off their obedience to their Prince, and take up the banner of Rebellion. Thus Cambden. Now the contention about the manner of disputing, which Cambden omits, was, what side should speak last; which the Bishops, because of their dignity, desired to do, after having observed: Fox p. 1924 that their cause suffered by the other side speaking last cum applausu populi, the verity on their sides being thus not so well marked. But this the Queen's Council would not yield to them, the first agreement being pretended contrary; and so that conference ceased. After this Disputation followed the suppressing, sect;. 179. n. 1. The Reg●l Su●remancy and all that K. Edw. h●d done in the Reformation now reestablished by the Queen and Pa●liament. of the Mass; of the Pope's Supremacy; of the Six famous Articles restored to their vigour by the Clergy in Queen Mary's days: the re-establishing of the Regal Supremacy, in all those spiritual Jurisdictions, which had formerly by any spiritual power been lawfully used over the Ecclesiastical State in these Dominions. To which Supremacy also were restored the tenths and first fruits given back by Queen Mary, and (upon pretence, that the Crown could not be supported with such honour as it ought to be, if restitution were not made of such Rents and Profits as were of late dismembered from it) all those Lands again were resumed by this Queen, which were returned to the Church or Religious Orders by Queen Mary. Besides which, because there were many Impropriations and Tithes, by dissolution of Religious Houses, invested in the Crown, the Queen kept several Bishoprics void, till she had taken into her hands what Castles, Manors and Tenements she thought good; returning unto the Bishops as much annual rent of Impropriations and Tithes; (but this an extended instead of the other old, rent.) Bishoprics being thus kept void also in following times one after another, upon several occasions (saith Dr. Heylin) till the best flowers in the whole Garden of the Church had been culled out of it. See his History of Queen Elizabeth, p. 120, 121. 156. and before in Edw. 6. p. 18. etc. sect;. 179. n. 2. Again: Now also followed the re-establishing of King Edward's later Form of Common-Prayer; but altered first in some things by eight Learned men, all of the reformed party, and non-Bishops, to whom the reviewing thereof was committed by the Queen. In which review (saith Dr. Heylin, Hist. of Reform. Qu. Elizabeth, p. 111.) there was great care taken for expunging all such passages as might give any scandal or offence to the Popish party, or be urged by them in excuse for their not coming to Church. Therefore out of the Litany was expunged the Petition to be delivered from the tyranny and all the detestable enormities of the Bishop of Rome. And whereas in King Edward's second Liturgy the Sacrament was given only under this Form: Take and eat this in remembrance &c. (see before, §. 160.) The Form also of King Edward's first Liturgy was joined to it, The Body of our Lord etc. Take and eat; lest (saith that Author) under colour of rejecting a Carnal, they might be thought also to deny such a Real, Presence, as was defended in the writings of the ancient Fathers. Likewise the Rubric about Adoration mentioned before ibid. was also expunged upon the same ground. And to come up closer (saith he) to those of the Church of Rome, it was ordered by the Queen's Injunctions; that the Sacramental Bread should be made round in the fashion of the wafers used in the time of Queen Mary; that the Lords Table should be placed where the Altar stood (as also the Altar in the Queens own Chapel was furnished with rich Plate, two fair gilt Candlesticks with Tapers in them, and a massy Crucifix of Silver in the midst thereof Ibid. p. 124.) that the accustomed reverence should be made at the name of Josus; Music retained in the Church, Festivals observed etc. Thus Dr. Heylin. And some such thing likewise was observed, if you will give me leave to digress a little, by the Synod afterward in her days 1562 in their reviewing King Edward's Articles of Religion, both concerning Real Presence; (For whereas in King Edward's Article of the Lords Supper we find these words [Since as the Holy Scriptures testify, Christ hath been taken up into Heaven, and there is to abide till the end of the world; It becometh not any of the faithful to believe or profess, that there is a Real or Corporal Presence (as they phrase it) of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Holy Eucharist] the alteration under Queen Elizabeth casts these words out:) and concerning Church- Authority and Church- Ceremonies. For whereas many of the English Protestant Clergy (that were dispersed in Queen Mary's days) being taken with the Geneva-way, were, when they returned, great Opposers of the Rites and Ceremonies used in the Church of E●●land, and of Church-authority in general; therefore to King Edward's twenty first Article was this new Clause now added ', The Church hath power to decree Rites and Ceremonies, and authority in Controversies of Faith. For Queen Elizabeth is said to have been a zealous Patroness of Real Presence. Insomuch as when one of her Divines (see Heylin's Hist. of Queen Eliz. p. 124.) had preached a Sermon in defence of the Real Presence on Good-Fryday 1565. she openly gave him thanks for his pains and piety. And in Queen Mary's days she at some time complied so far as to resort to the Mass, see ibid. p. 98. And her Verses of the Eucharist, in answer to a Priest desiring her judgement therein, are well known; 'Twas God the Word that spoke it, He took the Bread and broke it; And what the Word did make it, That I believe, and take it. She was also a rigid Vindicator of the Church-Ceremonies, and great Opposer of the Puritans (see before §. 162. and Dr. Heylin's Hist. p. 144. etc.) several of whom, though (in such a scarcity of Divines) she preferred in the beginning of her Reign, as Samson to be Dean of Christ Church, Whittington to be Dean of Durham, Cartwright Lady Margaret's Professor in Cambridge &c: Yet were they afterward no way countenanced by her, And when Alexander Nowell Dean of Paul's had spoken less reverently in a Sermon preached before her of the sign of the Cross, she called aloud unto him from her Closet Window, commanding him to retire from that ungodly digression, and to return unto his Text. (Heyl. Hist. p. 124.) But notwithstanding a certain moderation used in this Queen's days (in comparison of those last violent times of King Edward agitated and spurred on still further by Calvin from abroad, and by Peter Martyr and others here at home) and that though some reforming Acts passed by King Edward and repealed by Queen Mary were not thought fit now to be revived (as particularly that 1. Edw. 6.2. mentioned before §. 40:) Yet so it was that all the chief Acts that King Edward's Parliaments or Clergy had made concerning the Reformation were now revived; Sec 1. Eliz. ●. c. 2. and all, that Queen Mary's, or Henry the Eighth's (save in the matter of Supremacy) Parliaments or Clergy had done against it, was repealed. But this, §. 179. n. 3. B●t n●t by the Clergy. though done in spiritual matters, was done by the sole authority of the Queen and her Parliament, without obtaining any Synod to reverse the contrary decrees of the former Synods under those two Princes: nay further, whilst all the Bishops, that fate then in Parliament, openly opposed these Innovations. Cambden. Hist. Eliz. p 9 By her own sole authority the Queen likewise published certain Injunctions to the Clergy. And now the Regal Supremacy being thus restored only by the Civil power, an Oath of Supremacy was also drawn up and imposed on all Ecclesiastical persons upon penalty of the Refuser's losing all their Ecclesiastical promotion, benefice and office. 1. Eliz. 1. c. And so this Oath being unanimously refused by all the Bishops that then sat, save only the Bishop of Landaff, [I say all that then sat: For, by reason of a contagious sickness that then reigned, within less than the space of a twelvemonth (saith Dr. Heylin, Hist. of Reform. Qu. Marry, p. 81.) almost one half of the English Bishops had made void their Sees (three Bishoprics having been void from 1557; three Bishops dying some few weeks before the Queen; three not long after; one on the same day) which, with the death of so many of the Priests also in several places, did much facilitate the way (saith he) to that Reformation that soon after followed:] they were all ejected out of their Bishoprics; and with them, of the chief of the Clergy, fifteen Precedents of Colleges, twelve Deans, twelve Arch-Deacons, six Abbots, Camb. p. 17. fifty Prebendaries, lost their Spiritual Preferments, Meanwhile, many others (saith Dr. Heylin Hist. of Qu. Eliz. p. 115.) who were cordially affected to the interest of the Church of Rome, dispensing with themselves in outward conformities; upon a hope of such revolutions in Church-affairs as had happened formerly. § 180 Here, that we may examine the lawfulness of the ejection of these Prelates for refusing such Oath, The ejecting of the Bishops for refusing the Oath of her Supremacy. The unlawfulness there of. upon which depends the lawfulness or unlawfulness of the Acts of the Clergy succeeding them, I will first set you down the form of the Oath which was this: I do testify and declare in my conscience, that the Queen's Highness is the only Supreme Governor of this Realm, as well in all Spiritual or Ecclesiastical things or causes as Temporal: and that no Foreign Prince, Person, Prelate, State, aught to have any Jurisdiction, Power, Superiority, Pre-eminence, Ecclesiastical or Spiritual within this Realm: and therefore I do utterly renounce all foreign Jurisdictions, Powers, Superiorities: and do promise that from henceforth I shall assist and defend to my power all Jurisdictions, Privileges and Authorities granted or belonging to the Queen's Highness, or united and annexed to the Imperial Crown of this Realm. §. 181 This Oath, you see, consists of two parts: a Supremacy attributed and professed to the Prince; Concerning Regal Supremacy. How far it seemeth to extend. and a Supremacy denied and renounced to any Foreign power. And that I may speak more distinctly in this matter. 1. As to the first of these, thus much is freely conceded: That the Civil Magistrate hath a Supremacy in Spiritual and Ecclesiastical Affairs; and that such as none other hath; namely this: An external coactive power or jurisdiction committed to him by God, to enjoin to his Subjects the observance of the Laws of the Church; and of the Laws of God, as they are declared to him to be such by the Church: and to restrain and punish the transgressors of them, whether Clergy or Laity, within his Dominions, with the Civil Sword, which God hath put only into his hands. So that no Canons of the Church can be by the ecclesiastics or others, executed or enforced on the Subject as Laws, viz. with external Coaction, pecuniary or corporal mulcts or punishments etc. before the Secular Prince is pleased to admit such Canons and enrol them amongst his Laws, or to concede such coactive power to his Clergy. How far also the King's Supremacy may extend over all Ecclesiastical persons concerning the Investiture and presentation of them (so long as their canonical sufficiency is not denied by the Clergy) to such Temporal Church-Possessions, as either Princes, or others by their permission, have conferred on the Church (about which hath been in ancient times great Controversy between several Kings of England and the Pope) I meddle not to determine. Let this, for the present, be granted as much as any Prince hath claimed. It is likewise conceded: that in those words of the Oath [only Supreme Governor in Spiritual things] there is not any thing that expressly extends the Regal Supremacy any further; which may be the only supreme power m Ecclesiasticals in one respect, and not in another. Nor no more is there in the thirty seventh Article of the Church of England; which expounds the King's Supremacy thus [That he is to rule all estates and degrees committed to his charge by God, whether they be Ecclesiastical or Temporal, and to restrain with the Civil Sword the stubborn and evil-doers.] All which he may do; and yet be tied in all things to obey the Church her Laws, and to leave to her the sole judgement, who are these evil-doers, as to the breaking of God's Laws, or who stubborn and heretical persons. And such Regal Supremacy will well consist with another; either with a domestic Supremacy of his own Clergy, in judging Controversies and promulgating Laws in merely Spirituals; or also with a foreign Supremacy and Jurisdiction, of a Patriarch over all the Bishops of his Patriarchy in what Prince's Dominions soever; or of a General Council over all Provincial or National Churches. If therefore only such a Regal Supremacy, as this, were intended in the Oath, it cannot be justly refused. viz. If the Oath should run thus,— I do testify that the King is the Supreme etc. as well in all Spiritual or Ecclesiastical Causes as Temporal [that is, (as this Supremacy is expounded in Article thirty seventh) to rule with the Civil Sword all estates and degrees committed to his charge by God, whether they be Ecclesiastical or Temporal, and to restrain with the Civil Sword the stubborn and evil-doers.] And if this word [such] be inserted in the words following:— And I do testify that no foreign Prince, Prelate etc. aught to have any [such] jurisdiction etc. And Ergo I do utterly renounce all [such] foreign Jurisdiction etc.— You will say, what is gained to the King by an Oath so limited? This, that no Foreign or Domestic Power within his Dominions may, upon any pretence of Religion or other whatsoever, either take up himself, or licence any others to take up the Civil Sword against the King; or make any resistance to him therewith in order to any person, or cause, whatsoever. Which thing sufficiently secures his government, and the peace of his Kingdom. §. 182 2. Again: as to the second part of the Oath, thus much shall be freely conceded: That there is some Supremacy, in or dine ad Spiritualia, to which no Foreign State or Prelate may lay claim. As, besides that which is named already to belong only to the Civil Magistrate, it shall here be granted; (as being the opinion of several Catholics,) That no General Council hath any authority to make any Ecclesiastical Law, which any way entrencheth upon any Civil Right: Nor any foreign Prelate hath authority to use a Temporal power over Princes, (when judged heretical,) to kill or depose them, or absolve their Subjects from their Allegiance. Were therefore these words of the Oath understood only of such a Foreign power, which opposeth the security of the Queen's Civil Government; as Dr. Hammond urgeth. Schism. 7. c. §. 17. Or; which layeth intolerable burdens and exactions upon the Subjects of the Land [i. e. as to temporal matters] and which draws after it Positions and Doctrines, to the unsufferable prejudice of the Prince's Crown and Dignity; to the exemption of all Ecclesiastical persons (such as makes them but half-Subjects,) to the deposing of Kings, and disposing of their Kingdoms; as Dr. Fern urgeth Examine. Champ. 9 c. p. 279: it shall be granted here, without disputing any such controversy, that the Oath, for such thing as this, could not be justly refused. But after these Concessions, now to review the two parts of the Oath again, §. 183. n. 1. How far not. to see what more might lie in them. 1. For the First. There is a Supremacy in Spiritual and Ecclesiastical Affairs, which the Civil Magistrate cannot justly claim; viz. Such Supremacies as these: that a Prince may, when a Superior Council abroad, or the major part of his Clergy at home, hath or doth determine against something, which he, with some few, or a lesser part, of his Clergy, is persuaded to be consonant to the word of God, may (I say) suppress, and forbidden the Doctrine of those, and establish and promulgate the Doctrine of these; may thus make and publish new Ecclesiastical Articles or Canons, and correct, suspend, or dispense with former, and that where no just pretence of their violating any way his Civil Government. That he, without any Synodal consent of his Clergy; or, He with it, against the decrees of Superior Councils, may change the public Church Liturgies, her Service, or Discipline; and that when these no way hurtful to the Civil State. That the Clergy may not assemble about Spiritual concernments (which none deny that they may do even under Heathen Princes) but when he pleaseth to call them; may teach or promulgate no Ecclesiastical Decisions in matter of Doctrine, or Constitutions in matter of Discipline, to their flocks, being his Subjects, unless he first give his consent unto them, though these concern no civil right. That he may introduce into Bishoprics whom he approves, without the consent of a major part of the present Episcopacy; or may displace any, or prohibit the function of their office, within his Dominions, without any concurrence of the Clergy, and where is no just pretence of danger to his Secular Government. Briefly; to use Bishops Carleton's words cited before. That he may use any such Spiritual Jurisdiction, §. 3 as stands in examination of Controversies of Faith, judging of Heresies, deposing of Heretics, excommunication of notorious offenders, Institution and Collation of Benefices and Spiritual Cures. All or most of which Supremacies are not Supremacies belonging to the Prince, but to the Clergy, to Prelates, to Councils and Synods, Provincial, National, or higher. As hath been laid down in the first and second These; See before sect;. 2.4. and as will appear to any one at the first sight, if he will but empty his fancy a little of the prime Patriarch of the Catholic Church his being Antichrist; and of an erroneous, and Superstitious Hierarchy; and, on the other side, of an orthodox and godly Jesias-Prince: and seriously consider, what a mischief it will bring upon a National Church, when the supreme Secular Magistrate thereof is an Heretic or Schismatic, and invested with the abovenamed Supremacies in Spiritual Affairs. Nay I may further add to these, that there is some Supremacy in Ecclesiastical Affairs, which the Protestants themselves or the most Learned of them do not allow to the Prince: as this; That the Prince alone without the consent of some of his Clergy may make or impose upon his Subjects Ecclesiastical Laws, or decide such Controversies. And secondly there is another Supremacy which all the Presbyterian Protestants do not allow to the Prince: namely, that he may prohibit the Church Ministry and Officers from making or imposing any Ecclesiastical: Law without his licence and consent first obtained thereto; as you may see below §. 211. [Meanwhile how both these do safely take this Oath (there being neither of these limitations by the Oath-imposer mentioned either in it, or elsewhere with reference to it, nay the contrary being declared concerning the later of these two Supremacies) I see not, unless the Oath-taker may qualify his Oath according to his own sense.] To require therefore submission by Oath to such Supremacies of the Civil Magistrate, as these now named, is not lawful. §. 184 And that such submission was required from these Bishops is evident I think; That submission to the Royal Supremacy in this later kind was required from those Bishops. 1. Both from that Supremacy, which the Queen, at that very time, in these very things, exercised, without any Synodal consent, against former Synods (a Specimen of which you may see below §. 201. in Her Majesty's Commission to the Uncanonical Ordainers of Archbishop Parker; and to the same purpose, in Stat. 8. Eliz. 1.) and which the Kings Henry and Edward had formerly exercised. 2. And from that Supremacy, which the Parliaments granted and acknowledged due in these things to the Prince, as hath been showed, I think, sufficiently in this former discourse; they granting to the King all that authority and jurisdiction, which any Spiritual person or persons had formerly; excepting only the authority of ministry of divine offices in the Church. See before §. 71. All which authority formerly thus granted by the laws and annexed to the Imperial Crown of this Realm, the taker of this Oath is bound to assist and defend. (The like to which see also in the 1. and 2. Canon Ecclesiast. 1603.) Although the former Clergy, under Henry the Eighth, had never annexed these Supremacies to the Crown. See before. §. 25; or, if they had, had again, under Queen Mary, reversed it. Neither is it enough for our men, for the settling of such Supremacies upon the Crown, Ham. Schis. c. 7. p. 150. to prove, that they belong not to the Pope, as long as they may belong to the National Clergy, and to Councils. The qualification of such Regal Supremacy, which Dr. Fern, Examine. Champ. p. c. §. 16.20. hath produced as mitigating it, see replied to before §. 72. And see himself, (if I mistake him not) also defending such Regal Supremacy, as is here affirmed to be claimed in the places quoted below, §. 205: and not only him, but many other learned Protestant Divines. And therefore well might those Bishops understand the regal Supremacy in the Oath, in the same latitude, as these still do allow and maintain it. But see Mr. Thorndike (Just Weights, 20. c) freely acknowledging what we have said here, and desiring therefore the abrogating of this, and the enacting of a new, Oath.— It is manifest (saith he) that not only the unlimited power of the Pope, but all authority of a General Council of the Western Churches (whereof the Pope is and aught to be the chief Member) may justly seem to be disclaimed, by other words of the same Oath; and that, whereas the Pope usurped not only upon the Crown, but upon the Clergy of this Kingdom; all those Usurpations [as welt upon Clergy as King] are, by the Act of resumption under Hen. 8. invested in the Crown. So that, when the Oath declares to maintain all Rights and Preeminences annexed to the Crown, you may understand that maintenance which a Subject owes his Sovereign against those that pretend to force his [just] claim from Him; But you may also understand that maintenance, which a Divine owes the Truth in asserting the Title of the Crown to all Rights [whatever now] vested in it. Which [maintenance] he that believes that some Rights of the Church are invested in the Crown, ought not to undertake.— And again below: There is an appearance (saith he) that the misunderstanding of this Oath hath produced an opinion destructive to one Article of the Creed; [viz.] to the being of any Visible Church, as Founded by God. And besides it is not possible that all they, who are called to this Oath by Law, can ever be able to distinguish that sense in which they ought, from that wherein they ought not, to take it. And therefore of necessity, the Law gives great offence; and that offence is the sin of the Kingdom, and calls for God's Vengeance upon it. Therefore there is great reason, why, the Kingdom should enact a new Oath etc. Thus Herald §. 185 2. For the second part of the Oath: 2. Concerning Foreign Supremacy in Ecclesiastical affairs: how far it is to be acknowledged. And therefore I do utterly renounce all Foreign Jurisdictions &c: You are first to note. That from what is said before in the Oath [that the Queen's Highness is the only Supreme Governor in all Ecclesiastical things] it followeth; That so far as the Oath binds any to renounce all Foreign Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction or Authority, save the Queens, (that is, for any such Jurisdiction in Spirituals, as the Queen claimeth, whether such Jurisdiction be challenged by the Pope, or by a General Council &c. for here none is excepted) so far the Oath bindeth him also to renounce all Domestic Jurisdiction and Authority, (whether it be of the Arch-Bishops, or Bishops, or of a National Synod) in respect of, such Jurisdiction as is claimed by the Prince. So that none, who holdeth any such Jurisdiction in the Clergy at home, as others put in the Clergy or some Prelate abroad, may think that he escapeth the reach and power of the Oath, because of the word [Foreign] inserted therein. Having given you this precaution then, that you swear as well against any Jurisdiction of the Archbishop of Canterbury, or the National Synod of this Church, as of the Pope, or of a General Council concerning the Jurisdiction that is challenged by the Prince: Now to consider the thing itself. There may be such a Foreign or also Domestic Ecclesiastical Supremacy and Authority, as no way opposeth the good of the Civil State, nor any just privilege of a Secular Prince; but rather much corroborated and fortifieth it: and again as mainly tendeth to the unity and peace of the Church; which thro' all the world is only one Corporation and Body. And such Supremacy may be instituted and established, either by our Saviour; or by his Apostles; or later Ecclesiastical Constitution: as the varying State of the Church may stem to require. Neither can an Authority, thus established, and relating only to Spiritual Affairs, be justly disturbed or annulled by any Secular Governor; neither Heathen (as is granted by all) nor Christian (as there is more reason, that he, who is a Son and Subject of the Church, should never do it) as hath been she wed in Chur. Govern. 1. Par. §. 38. and Success. Cler. §. ●●. Again there actually is such a Supremacy for some Spiritual matters by some of the former ways given to the Representative of the whole Church Catholic, General Councils (which have been hitherto Foreign, and perhaps will always be so:) which Councils have a Jurisdiction and Authority over, and whose Canons and Decrees do oblige, particular Churches, though the Secular Magistrate descent or oppose; as the Emperor Constantius opposed the Nicene condemnation of Arianisme. Secondly, There is also given, at least in the intervals of these Councils, a Supremacy to the Bishop of the Apostolic See of Rome: to whom also is committed the care of seeing to the execution of the Canons and Decrees of these General Councils in all particular Churches: as hath been showed in Chur. Gou. 1. Par. And such Supremacy was ratified by the Clergy of this Nation; as formerly, so in their late Synods under Qu. Mary, and also under Qu. Elizabeth: See before §. 175. Art. 4. which Synods stood in force at the imposition of this Oath. Of these Supremacies thus Mr. Thorndike (Due way of composing differences p. 7.) It were a contradiction for the Church of England to pray for the Catholic Church and the unity thereof, and yet renounce the Jurisdiction of the whole Church, and the General Councils thereof, over itself. King James acknowledgeth the Pope to be Patriarch of the West; that is, Head of the General Council of the Western Churches. And Thomas Lord Bishop of Winchester under Queen Elizabeth being demanded, why we own him not so in effect? Answereth bluntly but truly, because he is not content with the Right of a Patriarch. For should he disclaim the pretence of dissolving the bond of Allegiance, should he retire to the Privileges of a Patriarch, in seeing the Canons executed; the Schism would lie at our door, if we should refuse it [deny such his Patriarchship.] Thus Herald Now whether, upon ones demanding more than his right; we may (afterward) lawfully deny him his right, or, for ever after, swear that he hath no right, judge you: as likewise whether the General Councils have lost their right, together with their Head, the Pope? Again of the Supremacy of a General Council over particular Churches, and so over this of England thus Bishop Bramhal (Reply to Chalced. p. 293.) upon the words in the Oath [and that no Foreign Prelate hath etc.] A General Council, which is no standing Court, but an aggregate body, composed partly of ourselves [i. e. of the Prelates of the Church of England] is neither included here nor intended. General Councils then, it seems, of which the English Prelates are a part, have a Jurisdiction, over a particular Church, not subordinate to the Secular Governors thereof. And if a General Council be once thus admitted, I see not how the Head thereof will be totally excluded; nor yet inferior Synods. Thirdly, There is a Supremacy in Spiritual matters, Decisions, and Decrees (I mean as to an independence on the Secular Power for the exercising their office, and enacting or divulging of such Decrees) belonging to the Metropolitans and their Provincial Synods in all National or Provincial Churches; if the First and Second Thesis above stand good. §. 186 To require therefore upon Oath an utter renouncing of any such Foreign, That the renouncing such Supremacy was required of those Bishops. or also Domestic, Clergy-Supremacy, is not lawful. But such was required of these Bishops, as appears; 1. by the express words of the Oath; and 2. by the giving of all such Jurisdiction Spiritual and Ecclesiastical, as by Any Spiritual or Ecclesiastical power [i. e. Foreign or Domestic] had thitherto been lawfully used over the Ecclesiastical State of this Realm, to the Queen, at the same time, that this Oath was made; See before §. 70. And 3. by the practice of these times suitable. Neither, here, are those Pleas good: that one may take away a just authority from him, who hath exercised an unjust. (for will Secular Princes admit this Rule concerning themselves?) Or that any small part of the Church Catholic, if declining to join with the whole, is not obliged to the Constitutions of the whole; Or, not later ages to the Constitutions of the former: Or, that no particular Church is tied to the Constitutions of Superior Councils past or present in matter of Church Government or Discipline, but only in matters of Faith: Or, See Church G●v. par. 1. sect;. 38.40.59. 2. Par. §. 63. 3. Par. §. 27. n. 2. that the Church of England hath not given her consent to such former Constitutions concerning such Church-Government, as well as other Churches: All which have been discussed in their places. Now if these Bishops were, thus, unjustly ejected for refusing to take an unlawful Oath; it follows, Sac. Clerg. §. that the Bishops succeeding them were unjustly introduced; and, consequently, their Synodal Acts illegal and void. §. 187 To prevent which inference, I find this pleaded by Dr. Fern, Examine. Champ. 2. c. p. 84. That so many of Queen Mary's Bishops could not be ejected on any other ground so as to reader the Protestant Bishops a major part, That, had none of these Bishops been removed, yet the Queen's Reforming-Bishops in Synod would have made a major part For (saith he) α there were six Bishops remaining [of King Edward 's;] and besides, there were many Bishoprics actually void at Queen Mary's death; which Bishoprics being supplied [by Queen Elizabeth] there was no fear, that the Popish Bishops (who were very suddenly reduced to Nine by death or by quitting the Land) should make the major part; had the business of Reformation been put at first to a Synodical Vote. Thus Herald To which it is added by others: β That no new Bishops had been elected into the vacant Bishoprics, yet if so many only of these Queen Mary's Bishops should have been displaced, as came into the Bishoprics of King Edward's former Protestant Bishops unjustly cast out; the six remaining Bishops of King Edward, with Landaff joined to them, would have out-numbred the remainder of Queen Mary's Bishops. §. 188 Reply to α But to these 'tis easily replied. To α; That 1. First it hath been showed already, That some of these six Bishops could not lawfully now act, because justly removed from their Bishoprics in Queen Mary's days; of the Suffragan Bishops, See before, §. 54. etc. more by and by. Secondly, That Queen Elizabeth could not justly and legally supply the then vacant Bishoprics with any persons, but such as the major part of her present Clergy (which surely were Catholics, and would have admitted no other) did first approve of, consecrate, and confirm. Of which see what is said before in the Third Thesis, and in the Church-Canons there-cited. To which I will add the testimony of Mr. Thorndike, Right of the Church, 5. c. p. 248. etc. The fourth Canon (saith he) of the Council of Nice requireth, that all Bishops be ordained by a Council of the Bishops of the Province [sifieri potest.] Which Council because it cannot always be had; therefore it is provided [there] that two or three may do the work, the rest consenting and authorising the proceeding. And this is that, which the ordinance of the Apostles hath provided, to keep the visible Communion of the whole Church in unity. But when, among the Bishops of any Province, part consent to Ordination, part not: the unity of the Church cannot be preserved; unless the consent of the whole follow the consent of the greater part. And therefore it seemeth, that there can no valid ordination be made, where the greater number of the Bishops of the Province dissent. Which is confirmed by the Ordination of Novatianus for Bishop of Rome. Which, though done by three Bishops, yet was the Foundation of that great Schism; because Cornelius was ordained on the other side by Sixteen. Thus Mr. Thorndike. §. 189 To β. To β. 1. First, that those may be lawful Bishops, who come into the places of other Bishops whilst living, if the other be justly ejected, as King Edward's Bishops were. Secondly, That of the fifteen Catholic Bishops there were only four that came into the place of any Protestant Bishop living when he was first elected thereto, namely Heath, Bourne, Christophorson, See before, §. 54. and Turbervile, into the place of Holgate, Barlow, Scory, and Coverdale. (For all of the rest, Bonner, Pate, White, Goldwell, Watson, Poole, Scot, Bayne, Oglethorp, Thirlby, Tonstal succeeded either Catholic Bishops, or Protestant Bishops deceased:) And those four Protestant Bishops were all married persons, and so excluded by the Canon; and three of them, Holgate, Barlow, Coverdale, married Monks. But of the fifteen Catholic Bishops there were only two that came into the place of any Protestant Bishop, when living: which Protestant Bishop had not first entered into the place of a Catholic Bishop, when living. For Coverdale and Scory Protestant's came into the Catholics Day's and Voicy's Bishoprics in King Edward's time whilst they living. The truth of these things you may see in Godwins Catalogue of Bishops. CHAP. XII. The Canonical Defects of King Edward's, and Queen Elizabeth's new Bishops. §. 190 NOW instead of these Catholic Bishops expelled, being all that then sat, Concerning the defects of the Qu. Protestant Bishops remaining since King Edward's days. save only Anthony Bishop of Landaff (whom Cambden calls the Calamity of his See, and who I think can be much challenged by no side; in Henry the Eighth's time, in Edward the Sixth's, in Queen Mary's, in Queen Elizabeth's, still acquiescing for his Religion on the Prince's direction) the Queen had only six others surviving since King Edward's time, out of whom to raise her new Ecclesiastical Hierarchy; Scory Bishop of Chicester, Coverdale of Excester, Barlow of Bath, two Suffragan Bishops of Bedford and Thetford and one Bale Bishop of Ossery in Ireland: amongst whom was no Metropolitan; and of whom but one was consecrated in Henry the Eighth's days; the other five in King Edward ●s, whose times were full of uncanonical Proceed, and liable to several exceptions. Again two of which Bishops, Scory, and Coverdale in King Edward's time came (as is said) into Bishoprics not void. Besides that on another account they, as also Barlow, were lawfully ejected in Queen Mary's days, as being married persons; two of them Barlow and Coverdale doing this, contrary to the Canons, both as Priests and as Religious. The later of whom also, going beyond-Sea in Q. Mary's days, there turned Puritan as they are called; and in the troubles of Frankford was one of the Opposers of the Common-Prayer-Book of England: and after his return, See Bishop Bramhal 's Consecrat. of Protestant Bishops j●stified ●ollinshe●d p. 1309. 26. He●. 8.14. c. 1, 2. Mar. 8. c. at the Consecration of Archbishop Parker, refused to wear an Episcopal habit as is found upon Record; nor would resume his Bishopric of Excester, but to his dying day lived a private Preacher in London; William Allen in the second year of Queen Elizabeth being made Bishop of Excester in his stead, As for the Suffragan Bishops, as they were (in a way and manner differing from former times,) first set up by King Henry: so were they put down again by Qu. Mary; and quite laid aside under Queen Elizabeth. §. 191 This for the reformed Bishops that are said to remain from King Edward's days: Concerning the defect, of the n●w Bishop Ordained in Qu. El●z●beth'● days. now touching the new ones who were made by Queen Elizabeth; I think not fit to trouble my Reader here with an exact discussion of the validity of their Orders, by reason of defects either in the Ordainers or the Ordained, since such a discourse, for the most part Scholastic, disputing of the Character, Matter, Form, Intention, etc. essentially required for the conferring of this Sacrament, may better come out in a Treatise a part, then interrupt this Historical Narration: Concerning these new Bishops and Prieststhen, I will briefly only observe two or three things, whereof the first shall be the judgement and esteem the Catholic Church has made of these and the like Orders, the second, that though these Orders be supposed valid, yet were they certainly unlawful and against the Canons; and moreover unprofitable yea noxious to those who conferred and received them. As to the first, sect;. 192. 1. the new Ordination grew so far suspected, as deficient, to Queen Mary, that in her Articles sent to the Bishops this is one. That touching such persons as were heretofore promoted to any Orders, Fox p. 1295. after the new sort and fashion of Orders; considering they were not ordered in very deed; the Bishop of the Diocese, finding otherwise sufficiency and ability in those men, may supply that thing which wanted in them before, and then according to his discretion admit them to minister. Bishop Bramhal indeed urgeth this following passage out of Cardinal Pool's Dispensation, to prove, Consecrat. of Protestant Bishops justified, 3. c. p. 63. that King Edward's new Form of Ordination was judged valid in Queen Mary's days by Cardinal Pool; by the Pope confirming his Acts; and by all the Clergy and Parliament of England. Ac omnes Ecclesiasticas saeculares, ceu quorumvis Ordinum Regulares, personas, quae aliquas impetrationes, dispensationes, concessiones, gratias, & indulta, ●●m Ordines, qua●● Beneficia Ecclesiastica, ceu alias Spirituales mat●rias praetensâ supremitate authoritatis Ecclesiasticae Anglican●, licet nulliter & de facto obtinuerint, & ad cor reversae [pe●●onae] ecclesiae unitati restitutae fuerint, in suis Ordinibus & Beneficiis per nos ipsos, ceu a nobis ad id deputatos, misericorditer recipiemus, prout multae receptae fuerunt, secumque super his opportune in Domino dispensabimus. From which words of the Cardinal the Bishop argueth; That, If King Edward's Clergy wanted some essential part of their respective Ordinations, which was required by the Institution of Christ; then, it was not in the power of all the Popes and Legates, that ever were in the world, to confirm their respective Orders, or dispense with them to execute their functions in the Church. Thus the Bishop. But if you look narrowly into the words of the Instrument, you may observe, that the Cardinal very cautiously here First saith not, dispensamus or recipimus in the present, as he doth in every one of his other dispensings throughout the whole Instrument, though in matters uncanonical, dispensamus, relaxamus, remittimus, concedimus, etc. in the present Tense, but here dispensabimus, in the future. And Secondly saith not singlely dispensabimus; but recipiemus per nos ipsos, seu deputatos: which reception per nos, seu deputatos, was not necessary for a dispensation with a matter only uncanonical. And Thirdly saith not recipiemus simply, but with a prout multae personae receptae fuerunt; referring to the manner of the reception, which had been used formerly in this Queen's days; which we find set down in the Queen's thirteenth Article: viz. That such new ordained repairing to the Bishop, and he finding them otherwise sufficient should supply that which was wanting to them in respect of their Orders, as they being before not ordered in very deed. And this is the Reason, why the Cardinal could not apply in this Instrument a present recipimus or dispensamus for these Ordines, as he doth for other things; though here he engageth to make good to every one such orders, as they then bore the title of. This is a sense of which the Cardinal's words are very capable, and seem also to favour; and which accords well with the Histories of those times: whereas that, which the Bishop puts upon them, makes them to contradict the public actions and proceed both before and after the passing of this act. For that the Cardinal, when Archbishop of Canterbury, and the Roman Bishops held not the Orders received by the new Form sufficiently valid quoad Characterem; as it may be gathered from Queen Mary's thirteenth Article forecited, and first considered, no doubt, by her Bishops: so it is clear from the Bishop of Gloucester, the Pope's Legate his degrading Ridley only from his Presbytership, See Fox p. 1604. and not his Episcopacy: For, saith he, We do not acknowledge you for a Bishop. Which had he understood quoad Excercitium, and not also quoad Characterem; then neither so ought he to have acknowledged him for, or degraded him as, a Presbyter; he being, quoad excercitium, no more the one than the other. Now the reason why he acknowledged him no Bishop quoad Characterem, was, I conceive, upon supposition that Ridley was not ordained by the old Form; because much offence being taken at that old Form, we may conjecture by the reason given in the Preface of the Statute recited before §. 42. that also before the new set-form established, there were in Ordinations some varyings from the old. The same you may see in Fox concerning Hooper made Priest by the old Form; Bishop by the new: and therefore degraded in Queen Mary's days only as a Priest. Again Mr. Bradford made Priest by the new Form: and therefore, in his condemnation not degraded at all, but treated as a mere Laic. In these days likewise Bishop Bonner writ a Book called A profitable and necessary Doctrine, etc. wherein he contendeth, See F. a S. Clara E●chirid. p. 93. that the new devised Ordination of Ministers was unsufficient and void: because no authority at all was given them to offer in the Mass the Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ; but both the Ordainer and Ordained despised and impugned not only the Oblation or Sacrifice of the Mass, but also the Real Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Sacrament of the Altar. Lastly 'tis probable, that Mason and others, Art. of Edw. 6.28. Art. to whom this dispensation could not be unknown, and was so serviceable for this Controversy, would not have left it unmentioned; could they have made any such construction thereof as Bishop Bramhal doth. 2. In general, those who are truly ordained, yet, if in an Heretical or Schismatical Church, their true Orders, as to the exercise of them, are unlawful; and so, unless a Church be first cleared from Heresy and Schism, these Orders are not rightly employed in it. And those also, who receive the Sacraments from their Ministry, do (though truly, yet) fruitlessly receive them. I mean so many, as by their obstinacy or ignorance culpable are guilty of the same Heresy or Schism: because these do not receive with the Sacrament gratiam sanctificationis or charitatem, or jus ad regnum caelorum, thro' such their sin; without which Charity any other fruition of the Sacrament is nothing worth. [Of which thus St. Austin, De Baptis. 7. l. 52. c. against the Donatists concerning their Priests giving, and others receiving the Sacrament of Baptism from them. Habent [potestatem dandi baptismum] quamquam inutiliter habeant: & accipitur ab eis etiam, cum inutile est accipientibus: quod ut fiat utile, ab haeresi vel schismate recedendum est. 54. c. Infructuose atque inutiliter [tradunt baptismum] tales talibus in eo, quod regnum Dei non possidebunt. Haereticis correctis baptisma non incipit adesse quod deerat, sed prodesse, quod inerat. And thus the Schools- Haereticus [i. e. manifest ab ecclesiâ praecisus] excommunicatus etc. non amittit potestatem conferendi Sacramentum, sed licentiam utendi hâc potestate, & ideo quidem confert, sed tamen peccat conferendo: & similiter ille, qui ab eo accipit Sacramentum; & sic non percipit rem Sacramenti [i e. gratiam sanctificationis] nisi forte per ignorantiam excusetur. Si sunt manifeste ab ecclesiâ praecisi, ex hoc ipso, quod aliquis accipit Sacramenta ab eis peccat, & per hoc impeditur, ne effectum Sacramenti consequatur. Thus Aquinas, p. 3.64. q 9.a.] And then what great difference in the giver of such Sacraments, not to have true Orders, and not to have the power to use them? Or in the receiver of the Sacraments, not to have true Sacracraments, and not to be benefited by them? Excepting only such, who living in such a separate Society are by their invincible ignorance excused from fault; to whom it is granted, that such Sacraments are effectual. When they return to the unity of the Church indeed, than his true Orders formerly received become to the one usable, and the true Sacraments formerly received to the other profitable. But this is in effect all one, as if then the one first the novo received Orders; §. 193 3. and the other the Sacraments. Whether their Ordination unlawful according to the Church C●●●●. 3. But again, though I do not here state the question; Whether they had such due Ordination and Ordainers as to be truly and essentially Bishops: Yet their Introduction and Ordination, if valid, seems several ways uncanonical and unlawful: Because they came many of them into the places of others unjustly expelled. 2. Because neither the major part nor any, save one, of the former incumbent Bishops consented to their Election or Ordination: See Thes. 3. §. 6.7. which consent is a thing most necessary for preservation of the Church, both in true Doctrine and in Unity. Of which you have heard but now Mr. Thorndike's Testimony. Who, in the same place, applying his Doctrine to this very fact, goeth on thus; Now it is manifest, that the Ordinations, by which that Orders [of Bishops] is propagated in England at and since the Reformation, were not made by consent of the greater part of Bishops of each Province; but against their mind, though they made no contrary Ordinations. And by the same means it is manifest, that all those Ecclesiastical Laws, by which the Reformation was established in England [i. e. by these new Bishops] were not made by a consent capable to oblige the Church; if we set aside the Secular power, that gave force unto that which was done [by the Bishops] contrary to that rule, wherein the unity of the Church consisteth. But in other parts, the Reformation was so far from being done by Bishops and Presbyters, or any consent, which was able to conclude the Church by the Constitution of the Church; that the very Order of Bishops is laid aside and forgot, if not worse, i. e. detested, among them. Upon which precedent it sounds plausibly with the greatest part among us; that, the unity of the whole being [thus] dissolved by the Reformation [i. e. by the Reformers either being against Bishops, or being Bishops made against the consent of the former Bishops:] the unity of the Reformation cannot be preserved, but by dissolving the Order of Bishops among us. The like he saith before, p. 248. If the Clergy of that time [i. e. in the beginning of Queen Elizabeth 's Reformation] had been supported in that power, which, by the premises [set down and justified in his Book] is challenged on behalf of the Clergy; this Reformation could not have been brought to pass, 3. Because to prevent all division and faction, as likewise to appoint a certain place and bounds for the exercise of his Jurisdiction, no Bishop, by the Church-Canon, can be made without the consent of his Superior, the Metropolitan; nor Metropolitan without the consent of the Patriarch: See Chur. Gou. 1. par. 9 §. who is to ordain or confirm the Metropolitans under his Patriarch-ship; either by imposition of hands himself, or by appointing his Ordainers, (at which time his Bull for authorising the Ordainers was used to be read) and by Mission of the Pall: See Conc. Nic. 4. c. Can. Apost. 34. Council Chalced. 27. c. and 16. Act. 8. General Council, 10. c. confessed by Protestants: by Dr. Field, 5. l. 31. c. p. 518. and 37. c. p. 551. Without the Patriarch's assent none of the Metropolitan's subject unto them might be ordained. What they bring proves nothing, that we ever doubted of. For we know the Bishop of Rome had the right of Confirming the Metropolitans within the Precincts of his own. Patriarch-ship. By Bishop Bramhal, Vindic. 9 c. p. 297. What power the Metropolitan had over the Bishops of his own Province, the same had a Patriarch over the Metropolitans, etc. Wherein then consisted Patriarchal Authority? In ordaining their Metropolitans, or confirming them, in imposing of hands, or giving the Pall, etc. And indeed what defence can the Church have from frequent Schism, if two or three, or a few Bishops, dissenting from the whole, may not only make other persons of the like inclinations Bishops to govern the people with them; but also may make new Metropolitans to preside over themselves? But Archbishop Parker was thus ordained by two Bishops of the same Province, without and against the consent, of the Patriarch; and of the Arch-Bishops Vicegerent, side vacant, the Bishop of London; and of the other Metropolitan, the Archbishop of York. Neither did he receive any Spiritual Jurisdiction at all from any Ecclesiastical Superior; but merely that which the Queen (a Lay-person) by these men, her Delegates in this employment, did undertake (according to the warrant of the Statute 1. Eliz. 1. contrary to the First and Third Thesis above) to confer upon him. Which Delegates of here's were none of them at that time possessed of any Diocese, (Barlow and Scory being then only Bishops Elect of Chicester, and Hereford; and Coverdale never admitted or elected to any; and Hoskins a Suffragan) nor, had they had Dioceses, could have had any larger jurisdiction save only within these; at least, being single Bishops, could have no Metropolitical Jurisdiction; which yet they conferred on Parker, not on their own surely, but on the Queen's score. And then, might not she at pleasure take away and strip Parker again of all that Jurisdiction, which he held only on her gift? See above the First and Third Thes. 4. Of their four Bishops, that undertook to ordain Parker, three, Barlow, Coverdale and Scory, were upon several accounts justly before deprived or their Bishoprics; and as for the fourth, Hoskins the Suffragan, See before, §. 58.189.190. these had their office formerly taken away, and never after restored. Neither, their authority standing good, See before, §. 190. is one or two Bishops a competent number for Ordination. 5. The Form of the Ordination of these new Bishops, as it was made in Edward the Sixth's time; so it was revoked by Synod in Queen Mary's days; and by no Synod afterward restored, before their Ordination. Revoked also by an Act of Parliament in Queen Mary's days, and not by any Act restored, 1. Mar. 2. c. till long after the Ordination of Queen Elizabeth's first Bishops, viz. in 8. Eliz. 1. Upon Bonner's urging hereupon, that the Queens, were no legal, Bishops. §. 194 And for such considerations as these, it seems, it was, that the Queen in her Mandate to Coverdale, Scory, Where Concerning the Queen as Supreme in Ecclesiasticals her dispensing with the former Ecclesiastical Laws for their Ordination. etc. for the Ordination of her new Archbishop Parker, etc. was glad, out of her Spiritual Supremacy, and Universal jurisdiction, (which the Parliament had either given, or recognized to belong to her; and had enacted also, That Her Majesty might assign, name and authorise any person being natural born Subjects to her Highness to exercise all manner of Spiritual Jurisdiction, [of which Jurisdiction one Act is that of Ordaining.] See 1. Eliz. 1.) to dispense, and give them leave to dispense to themselves, with all former Church-laws, which should be transgressed, in the electing, consecrating, and investing of this Bishop. The words in her Letters Patents to them are these, Mandantes, quatenus vos eundem in Archiepiscopum & pastorem ecclesiae praedictae confirmare & consecrare &c. velitis. Supplentes nihilominus Supremâ authoritate nostrâ regiâ, si quid in vobis aut vestrum aliquo, conditione, statu, aut facultate vestris, ad praemissa perficienda desit eorum, quae per leges ecclesiasticas in hac parte requiruntur aut necessaria sunt, temporis ratione & rerum necessitate id postulante. [Which Dispensation some would restrain only to these Ordainers their using of the new Ordinal before it was licenced again by a new Parliament after the repeal thereof by Parliament in Queen Mary's day. Bish. Bram. Consecrat. of Protestant Bishop● 4. c. P. 94. But this was a scruple started afterward by Bishop Bonner; and not now dreamt on. Nor did the new Ordinal want sufficient Lay-licence, having the Queens; nor had the Parliament been defective in re-licensing it (for which see ibid. Bishop Bramh. p. 96:) nor are those words in the Dispensation— Si quid in vobis conditione, statu &c, rerum necessitate id postulante, applicable to it.] And these are the words in the Instrument of Archbishop Parker's Confirmation— Nos &c, praedictam electionem Matthaei Parker in Archiepiscopum &c, Supremâ authoritate regiâ nobis in hac parte commissâ confirmamus. Supplentes ex supremâ authoritate regiâ nobis delegatâ, quicquid in nobis aut aliquo nostrum etc. And, notwithstanding this regal Dispensation, yet afterward, Divers questions [to give you it in the words of the Statute 8. Eliz. 1. c.] by overmuch boldness of speech and talk, amongst many common sort of people being unlearned, growing upon the making and consecrating of Arch-Bishops and Bishops within this Realm, whether the same were and be duly and orderly done according to the Law or not? [give me leave here to suppose that these scrupulous people meant according to the Ecclesiastical Law; for what doth the observing of the Civil Law concern them in the ordaining of their Spiritual Governors?] which is much tending to the slander of all the State of the Clergy, being one of the greatest States of this Realm; It is answered to them in the same Statute thus, That the Queen's Majesty in her Letters Patents &c, had not only used such words, as were accustomed to be used by King Henry and Edward, but also had put, in those Letters, divers other general words, whereby her Highness by her Supreme power and authority had dispensed with all causes, or doubts, of any imperfections or disability, that could be objected against the same. So that to all those that will well consider of the supreme and absolute authority of the Queen's Highness [i. e. in Ecclesiasticals] which she had used and put in ure in the making and consecrating of the said Arch-Bishops and Bishops, See it before, §. 70 it is evident, that no cause of scruple, ambiguity, or doubt, can be justly objected against the said Consecrations, etc. Thus the Act. And this is proposed for the satisfaction of those, whose chief solicitude was concerning the transgressing the Laws of the Church, in these Church matters. And the Answer seems in effect this, That though these Bishops were ordained contrary to the Laws of the Church, yet they were ordained according to the Laws of the Land: and that this was sufficient to warrant the Ordination; because these Laws of the Land had given authority to the Queen to dispense with any repugnant Laws of the Church. §. 195 Thus much of Queen Elizabeth's change of her Clergy. And here I think meet to prosecute no further this Subject; this reformed Clergy being such persons, as would act according to the pleasure of a reformed Prince; and therefore it is not strange, if the Prince acted no more against, but by, them; and began now anew to use the Synod more, than the Senate, in the transaction of Spiritual Affairs. CHAP. XIII. The Opinion of several Protestant Divines concerning a Reformation in Religion made against a Major Part of the Clergy. §. 196 ONly, before I conclude this Discourse, let me show you, The opinion of several Protestant Divines touching the lawfulness of the Prince's reforming of Religion in matters of doctrine against the major part of his Clergy, when to him seemeth a necessity that requireth it. after all the rest; that, as it hath been affirmed here, that the Reformation was not effected by the Clergy of this Nation, but by the Princes and their Council against the inclinations of the much major part thereof: So some of the ablest of the reformed Divines, though they contend, that our Princes did not so; Yet, as if they doubted much, whether they should be able to make this good, do reserve this as a secure retreat for themselves; that a Prince, when there is a necessity that requires it, of which necessity the Prince is to judge, or in cases extraordinary, of which cases the Prince is to judge, may lawfully reform Religion, both in matters of Doctrine and Discipline, contrary to the major part of the Clergy (these Learned Men defending the Secular powers herein by the example of the good Kings of Israel.) Upon which also they make no scruple to join Communion with those Transmarine Protestants, whom all grant to have reform against all their Spiritual Superiors: Nay also, in the beginning of this work, such Reformers were sent for from abroad to assist them here against the contrary current of the Clergy of this Land. And indeed it seemeth but necessary that they should patronise this Tenent; because if they should once maintain, That no Reformation is valid, which is done against the major part of the National Clergy; by the same reason they must assert, that the Reformation of no National Clergy is valid, which is done against a major part of the Patriarchy; or of the Church, or Council; to which this National Clergy will be found to owe obedience. §. 197 The first testimony of those I shall produce for this assertion, is that of Dr. Field. He, The Opinion of Dr. Field. after these specious Concessions, We do not make our Princes with their Civil States supreme in the power of commanding in matters concerning God and his Faith and Religion without seeking the direction of their Clergy. Of the Chur. 5. l. 53. c. Again: We do not attribute to our Princes with their Civil Estates power newly to adjudge any thing to be Heresy, without the concurrence of the State of their Clergy; but only to judge in those matters of Faith, that are resolved on, according to former resolutions. [Where the Dr. seems to leave the Prince no liberty to judge or establish any thing in matters of Faith according to his own opinion: but, in matters formerly determined confineth him to the judgement of former Councils; in matters not formerly determined, to the judgement of his Clergy [i. e. the major part thereof:] Yet, after such specious Concessions, I say, he proceedeth, as it were to protect the Reformation, on this manner, Touching errors of Faith or aberrations in the performance of God's Worship and Service, there is no question, but that Bishops and Pastors of the Church, to whom it appertaineth to teach the truth, are the ordinary and fittest Judges: and that ordinarily and regularly Princes are to leave the judgement thereof unto them. But because they may fail [they; i e. the Bishops and Pastors of the Church, and not only single persons, but Synods of them; else single persons failing may easily be reduced by Synods, and a minor by the major part, and so long the Prince judges with his Clergy not against them; and the Judgement of such things being made by this major part is still ordinary and regular. Neither needs the Prince to remove the matter from these, to other, Judges] either thro' negligence, ignorance, or malice, Princes having charge over God's people; and being to see, that they serve and worship him aright, are to judge and condemn them [the foresaid Clergy] that fall into gross errors contrary to the common sense of Christians; or, into any other Heresies formerly condemned [I conceive he meaneth, condemned by former Councils.] And though there be no general failing [in the Clergy:] yet if they see violent and partial courses taken, they may interpose themselves to stay them, and cause a due proceeding; or remove the matter from one sort of Judges to another [I suppose he meaneth, either from the whole Clergy to Secular Judges; or from that part of the Clergy though more which he dislikes, to some others of the Clergy though fewer whom he approves: for to remove the matter from fewer to more is regular and ordinary. But here he speaks what the Prince may do extraordinarily.] Thus Dr. Field. §. 198 Who (not to urge Bishop Andrews his observation against him: Tort. Tort. p. 372. Ad extraordinariam potestatem confugere non solet quis, nisi cui deplorata res est.) here seems to six the Prince, as one that cannot fail thro' negligence, ignorance or malice to others, or at lest cannot fail so soon, as the whole body of the Clergy may; (what not fail in ignorance of Divine matters sooner than they?) As one that hath a charge over God's people, and is to see, that they worship God aright: as if the Clergy had not such charge much more than he; or, as if he could judge what was right in God's Worship, better than they. Again: he represents this body, or the major part of this Clergy as those that may fall into gross errors contrary to the common sense of Christians; and into Heresies condemned, he meaneth, by former Clergy. But why may not those former Clergy be supposed by the Prince to have erred sometimes contrary to the common sense of Christians, as well as the present Clergy? And if the present Clergy may err against common sense in Spiritual matters; why may not the Secular Prince sooner? And why should not they discern former condemned Heresies, better than he? Or if in all these things the Prince be liable to mistakes, to sects, and sides, and partialities, as much as they: why are not they made his Judges in these Spiritual matters, who cannot be denied to be his Spiritual Fathers in respect of his Christianity; rather than he theirs? But however this Dr. plainly saith: that there may be some cases, wherein, concerning errors in Faith, or aberrations in the performance of God's Worship, the Prince may judge and condemn the whole Clergy; or may remove the matter from their, to a Secular, judgement, or to such other Ecclesiastical Judges, as he shall choose; who hardly can ever want some amongst the Clergy, suiting with his desires. §. 199 In the next place hear the judgement of Mr. Mason de Minist. Angl. He, Of Mr. Mason. De Minist. Ang. 3. l. 3. ●. after having thus expostulated with his Adversary [Quis enim nostrum unquam affirmavit Principes in causis fidei & religionis supremos esse cognitores & judices? De hac a Cardinale Bellarmino & aliis Pontificiis ecclesiae Anglicanae illatâ injuriâ sic olim conquestus est doctissimus Whittakerus— Affirmat Jesuita hunc judicem non esse Principem aliquem saecularem. Respondeo: Hoc quoque nos dicimus.] Thus states this matter to Philodoxus, p. 272. Pastorum est dubia Legis explicare: Regum vero veritatem cognitam [sibi] promulgare & subditis cujuscunque sint ordinis [i. e. whether Clergy or Laity] imperare. [But here I cannot but ask one question: May not the Clergy then veritatem cognitam, quandocunque rex contra nititur, promulgare subditis suis, in illius regno, quorum animarum curam gerunt? Now to go on] Regis enim est (saith he pag. 273.) ex praestituto legis omnia facere. Adhibebit igitur media, quae hac in causâ adhiberi par est: leget scripturas, orabit Dominum, & juris divini peritissimos consulet. Nec tamen splendidis hominum titulis aut suffragiorum numero, aut locorum privilegiis, tantum deferet, quantum veritati [i. e. that which he conceives to be truth:] paucis secundum scripturas docentibus [i. e. whom he conceives to teach so] potius credet, quam 400 pseudoprophetis pro cultu Baalis contendentibus. [And after such consultation, then] Illius est serenitatis suae edicta sancire & promulgare. So 3. l. 4. c. he saith concerning his opposing Councils, Imperator etiam in sacrosanctis fidei mysteriis pro veritate [i. e. quae sibi videtur] jubere potest, Concilii decreto in contrarium non obstante. And, Penes Imperatorem esse potestatem Conciliorum constituta sacris Scripturis consentanea [i. e. quae sibi videntur, aut aliis paucis] confirmandi, contraria vero cassandi, agnoscit Leo [but he mistaketh Leo.] And Neque ad Primatum Regium quicquam interest, See below, §. 211. sive praelucentes Synodorum sententias habeat rex, sive non habeat. Sive enim veritatem caelestem ipsi dignoscant, sive a praelatis suis edocti ediscant, dummodo pro veritate [i. e. quae sibi videtur] jubeant & leges condant, verè se exhibent supremos gubernatores. Thus Mr. Mason. §. 200 Let us now see, what he hath said: The King, before he do any thing in Controversies of Religion, aught to consult the Clergy, and to follow the truth known. What? That which the Clergy tell him to be the truth? No. But only that, in which he findeth them to judge aright and according to the Scriptures; which judgement he may entertain, though it be a smaller part of the Clergy that judge so. Here therefore the King judgeth, when, or which of the Clergy judgeth aright, and which otherwise: and is at his liberty, to follow therein any number of them. And neither is he thus a Judge for himself-only, judicio discretivo, as they call it; but for others too, judicio decisivo (which the Clergy are not) so far, as to promulgate and command all his Subjects, and amongst them the Clergy, to obey that which he, upon consulting the Clergy and hearing their reasons, judgeth to be according to God's word: and this without the consent of the Clergy at all; or at least of the major part of them. But they may not promulgate what they judge according to God's word in such Controversies without the King's consent. And yet quis enim nostrum unquam affirmavit, Principes in causis fidei & religionis supremos esse cognitores & judices? I would fain speak it plainly, if I could. A Controversy is agitated in Religion; the King consulteth his Clergy about it; they give him their reasons, why such a Proposition is agreeable to the Scriptures. He considers the Scriptures and their reasons, and judgeth, upon it, that their reasons are faulty; and that they define not juxta legem &c. and that the contradictory Proposition, which perhaps some few of the Clergy compared with the rest, or perhaps none of them maintain, is according to Scripture. Whereupon he publisheth this contradictory Proposition to all his Subjects, Clergy as well as Laity, by his edicts; and requireth their obedience thereto. Is not the Prince than a Judge of such Controversy, as well as, nay rather than, the other, and over, and after, the other? Commanding obedience to him from the other? 'Tis true: that Mr. Mason and others acknowledge in matters of Religion no visible judge on earth, that is infallible. But he acknowledgeth a Judge, judicio discretivo for himself; and this is every private man. Again he acknowledgeth a Supreme visible public Judge on earth, judicio decisivo; so far as to command such a Doctrine to be received by all his Subjects Ecclesiastical and Laic for a truth, which he, by his judicium discretionis, holds to be so. And this is every Christian Prince within his own Dominions. Therefore Mr. Mason sticks not to say elsewhere; Nihil impedit, quin Principes doceant suo modo, i. e. regali. De Minist. 3. l. 6. c. Nam qui legem salutarem sancit, is quid faciendum sit docet. Docet (inquam) omnes suos subditos, etiam Episcopos; eosque, si forte in hujusmodi legem incurrant, [i. e. his Spiritual Law, made by him sometimes against their consent, when by his judicium discretivum he discovers them to err] juxta eandem judicare potest. However this is clear out of Mr. Mason; 1. that, Regis est veritatem cognitam promulgare, & subditis, cujuscunque sint ordinis, imperare. And 2. that, in consulting his Clergy about such truth, he ought not suffragiorum numero tantum credere, quantum veritati; and ought paucis secundum scripturas docentibus [i. e. in his opinion, which Prince is, casually, of an able, or weak, judgement, as other men are] potius credere, quam 400 non docentibus secundum scripturas. Which I undertook to show you. Therefore King Edward shall rather believe Cranmer and Ridley, and Queen Elizabeth Dr. Cox and Mr. Grindale docentibus veritatem, (i. e. most commonly, that Doctrine, to which such Princes have been formerly educated and accustomed,) than 400 in a Synod teaching the contrary. §. 201 The next I shall name to you on this subject is Bishop Andrews; Of B sh●p Andrews. who after he had declared thus in Tort. Tort. p. 380. Rex noster vestrum illud (quod ad primatum pontificium proprie pertinere dicitis) docendi munus, vel dubia legis explicandi, non assumit: Yet in his Resp. ad Apolog. cap. 14. p. 332. to Bellarmine urging Deut. 17. etc. That the supreme decisive judgement in divine matters belongeth to the Priests, thinketh fit to answer thus; Rex adibit Sacerdotes; ubi tamen hoc fecerit, cum in Deuteronomio dicere jubeantur sacerdotes & docere juxta legem Dei, See the like Tort. Tort. p. 370. leget exemplar suum Rex (quod sibi descripsit, ut secum habeat) ut sciat an ex eâ respondeant. E Malachiá sciet, eos a quibus requirere jubetur legem, interdum recedere de viâ, & scandilizare plurimos in lege: quare recurret denuo ad exemplar suum. A Christo autem discet, ut Pharisaeos e cathedrâ docentes audire, ita a Pharisaeorum fermento, i. e. doctrinâ aliquâ, cavere.— Pascua petet; nec sibi Pastor erit, sed sibi tamen gustabit: &, si amarum pabulum & noxium, gustabit, ut Christus acetum: quod, cum gustasset, noluit bibere. Where the Prince is allowed both to try and reject the Clergy's doctrines; when, upon tasting, he finds the doctrine to be pabulum amarum & noxium, and the Clergy, recedere de viâ & non docere juxta legem Dei. And then, since the Prince doth not taste and try only for himself, as private persons do, but for all his Subjects also; consequently it will belong to him, veritatem cognitam promulgare, & subditis suis cujuscunque sunt ordinis imperare against the Priests, when recedentes e viâ. Wherein the Bishop's, concurs with Mason's, Doctrine. Again: Cap. 1. to Bellarmine urging a place of S. Ambrose he replies thus; Verum laudat Ambrosium, St. Ambros. Ep. 2. l. 13. Epist. qui negat in causis ecclesiasticis Imperatorem idoneum cognitorem [i. e. judicem] Quem? Valentinianum juniorem, imberbem, nec dum baptizatum, totum ex matris arbitrio pendentem, quae ipsa 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Sed esto. Quid hoc ad rem? Non de cognition causarum hic agitur, ad quam non tam fortasse semper idoneus Rex (qui saepe immaturâ aetate, saepe infans, saepe Marti magis addictus, quam Mercurio.) Agitur de authoritate, quae idoneos cognitores det. Where the Bishop 1. first seemeth very loath to yield Princes in causis ecclesiasticis non esse idoneos cognitores; using a non tam fortasse semper; and catching at Valentinian's being junior, imberbis, nec dum baptizatus, ex matris arbitrio pendens, etc. When as S. Ambrose giveth his reason plainly, for that the Emperor was Laicus. (But upon this word the Bishop thought not fit to touch) Quando audisti (Clementissime Imperator) (saith St. Ambrose) in causâ fidei laicos de Episcopo judicare? What? not, quando Episcopus recedit de viâ, quando non docet juxta legem; then shall not the Prince recurrere ad exemplar suum & c? 2. The Bishop in allowing, at last, this authority to the Prince [ut det idoneos cognitores] I think will be found to allow, what he would fain wave. For what meaneth he by dare idoneos cognitores? The authority to call a Council or Synod of the Clergy, those Judges whom our Lord Christ hath given us for these matters; to be changed or altered by no other Lord whatever; whose final judgement in these matters the Prince himself is to stand-to and follow? See 3. Thes.. §. 5, 6. But this cannot be his meaning; because after their teaching and judgement, the Prince is to recurrere ad exemplar suum: a fermento e cathedrâ docentium cavere: not only sibi, but subditis suis gustare; whether their Pabulum be dulce & salutare, or amarum & noxium; and accordingly to recommend, or prohibit it to his people. Or meaneth he, that, amongst this Clergy that are not all of one judgement (for example, some reformers, a smaller part; some anti-reformers, a greater;) the Prince may authorise those of them, whom he judgeth the more orthodox, to be the cognitores in causis ecclesiasticis? But thus, amongst these Cognitores differing, for the Prince to choose and decide which party of them shall decide such controversies, is all one in effect, as for himself to decide such controversies; He allowing such and not another to be teacher, from first a judging and an approving of, his Doctrine. §. 202 I must confess I find elsewhere a timorousness, as to me seemeth, in Bishop Andrews, though speaking much on this Subject, to speak out plainly concerning this branch of Supremacy; Whether the Prince may reform any thing in matters of Faith against the major part of Church-Governors or against Synods: Yet is this the chief point of Supremacy which sustaineth the English Reformation. Amongst all the parts of the Regal Primacy, which he reckoneth up p. 373. and again p. 380, 381. against Tortus, this is not, that I can discern at all, directly spoken to. He saith indeed p. 380. Regi jus nullum esse vel fidei novos articulos, vel cultus divini novas formulas procudendi. But here novoes may be opposed either to the former decrees of the Synods and Councils of the Church; or only to the Scriptures; and he may mean the later. Again, p. 365. to Tortus saying; Regi ex officio incumbere, ut qui in doctrinâ sunt abusus & corruptelas tollat; sed post ecclesiae declarationem: he answers; Nos vero citra declarationem omnem, ubi repurgatae sunt corruptelae per Reges, docemus. Where you may observe this still left in doubt: Whether Rex contra declarationem etc. may do such things; and yet, if the King be bound to consult the Church first in such matters, according to Mal. 2.8, his reforming will still be either secundum; or contra; and not citra only. Neither is it credible, but that both Hezekiah and Josiah etc. consulted with the Priests in their Reformation. Again, p. 369. he saith: Authoritate Rex propriâ resecare potest superstitiones quas sacerdotes ipsi tolerant; but he saith not; quas sacerdotes ipsi docent nen esse superstitiones. Again, p. 364. he speaks thus of a thing done. In Israele praecipuae in re religionis partes penes Regem extiterunt; vel uno hoc argumento, quod per sacrae historiae seriem totam mutato novi regis animo mutata semper est facies religionis. Nec Pontifices unquam vel praestare poterant, ut fieret mutatio in melius; vel ne fieret in pejus, impedire. And p. 368. Passim per fastos sacros quod in religione fit, a rege fieri diserte dicitur, Regis factum esse: Pontificis haud unquam, nisi ex Regis mandato. But I hope he will not hence infer; that summa religionis is not penes Pontifices, if the Prince apostatizeth from the true Religion; or that the Church Governors may do nothing contra Regis mandatum; nor may oppose him and teach the people contrary to his Reformations; where they judge that he reformeth not aright (what did the Church-Governors for the first 300 years?) Especially since p. 377. (which I desire you much to mark) he alloweth such Ecclesiastical Primacy as the good Kings of Israel used, not to all, but only to Christian, Princes; and to Christian Princes, not all, but only those not heretical; and I suppose he would say also, not schismatical (for if the Prince were heretical or schismatical he well saw the mischief of such a power) so he saith there. Interim autem sit vel infidelis [Princeps] sit vel haereticus; Oretur pro eo, non minus quam pro Nebuchadonozar; nemo vitae ejus insidietur, non magis quam Ahasueri. Fidem penes semet habeant Christiani subditi coram Deo, caeteris in rebus pietatem colant. Non ergo id agitur, ut ecclesiae persecutores ecclesiae gubernatores habeantur etc. And something toward this saith Mr. Mason, de Minist. 3. l. 5. c. if I rightly understand him. Regibus, qui vel non sunt christiani; vel si christiani, non tamen orthodoxi; vel si orthodoxi, non tamen sancti, primatus competit quidem, sed secundum quid: i. e. quoad authoritatem, non quoad rectum & plenum usum authoritatis; quoad officium, non quoad illustrem executionem officii [none such therefore may execute any Ecclesiastical Primateship, unless the Author seek for some refuge in the Epithets rectus, plenus, & illustris.] And the same saith Bishop Bicson. When the Magistrate doth not regard, but rather afflict the Church, as in times of infidelity and heresy; who shall then assemble the Pastors of any Province to determine matters of doubt or danger? [To which question he answers] The Metropolitan. Now if no Prince heretical, though Christian, hath any Primacy in Ecclesiastical Affairs; before we yield such Primacy to a Prince, we must know, whether he be not heretical; and who can so rightly judge of this, as the Church or Clergy? And then, will not the Church (and is it not right to,) judge him such, when he opposeth her present or former definitions in matters of Faith? See Church Govern. 3. Part, §. 42. And what just Supremacy, then, for matter of Doctrine, is left here to the Prince, but an authorising by his coactive power the Church's decrees? Which Regal Supremacy all sides allow. But, as I said, this is contrary to what Bishop Andrews saith elsewhere; that the Prince's Supremacy may oppose the Clergy, when they do (i. e. when he thinks they do) recedere de viâ, & non docere juxta legem Dei etc. §. 203 The fourth Author I shall produce is Mr. Thorndike, who writing very rationally and resolutely in vindication of the Church's authority, Of Mr. Thorndike. as using his Pen against modern Sectarists, yet takes care also to save the Phaenomena of the Reformation. He therefore, in his Right of the Church, 5. c. p. 248. after he had with much freedom shown, That the Succession of the Clergy in such a Government as that the visible Communion of the whole Church might be perpetually kept in unity, See before, §. 188. was a Law ordained by the Apostles: and That the Reformation made in England had plainly violated this Law, in that the new Bishops that were introduced were made without and against the consent of the former (some of his words are cited before §. 200.) taketh this course to solve this difficulty, and to preserve the English Reformation, notwithstanding this, from being unlawful or schismatical. To come then (saith he) to the great difficulty proposed: it is to be acknowledged, that the power of the Church, in the persons of them to whom it is derived by continual Succession, is a Law ordained by the Apostles, for the unity of the Church etc. But withal it is to be acknowledged, that there are abundance of other Laws given the Church by our Lord and his Apostles, whether they concern matters of Faith; or matter of Works, etc. which proceeding from the same, if not a greater, power, than the Succession of the Church, are to be retained all, and every one of them with the same religion and conscience [as the succession of the Church.] Again, I have showed indeed, that the secular power is bound to protect the Ecclesiastical, in their determining all things which are not [otherwise] determined by our Lord and his Apostles; and to give force and effect to the acts of the same. But in matters already determined by our Lord and his Apostles, as Laws given to the Church, if by injury of time the practice become contrary to the Law; the Sovereign power, being bound to protect Christianity, is bound to employ itself in giving strength, first, to that which is ordained by our Lord and his Apostles. By consequence, if those, with whom the power of the Church is trusted, shall hinder the restoring of such Laws; the Sovereign power may and aught, by way of penalty to such persons, to suppress their power; that so it may be committed to such as are willing to submit to the superior Ordinance of our Lord and his Apostles. Here Mr. Thorndike holds, that the Secular power may restore any law, which Christ or his Apostles have ordained, not only against a major part, but all, the Clergy, and Governors of the Church: and may, for a penalty of their opposing it, suppress their power and commit it to others, though they also be established by another Law Apostolical. Which was the thing I undertook to show you. §. 204 But to say something to this discourse of his. What reasonable man is there hearing this, that will not presently ask: Who shall judge, whether that be indeed a Law ordained by our Lord or his Apostles, which the Prince would introduce or restore, and the succession of the Clergy doth oppose? Which Clergy sure will never confess such to be a law of our Lord, but always will profess the contrary: nay will say, that the succession of the Clergy shall keep, teach, and maintain, our Lord's laws to the end of the world? This question he asketh not; he solveth not; as writing against the Presbyterians, who will not ask it him. But what can he say? Shall the Clergy judge? They deny it to be the Lord's law, what he, against their consent, would restore. Shall the Prince judge? But this is most unreasonable, that the judgement of a Laic shall be preferred before the whole succession of the Clergy in Spiritual manters. And what mischief will come hereupon, if he judge amiss? And here let me set before him his own rules: Right of Chur. 4. c. p. 235. Such a difference falling out [saith he, i. e. between the secular power and the Bishops] so that to particular persons it cannot be clear, who is in the right [as how can it be clear to particular persons, which is not to their guides in those matters; and which is not to other particular persons, who also think the contrary clear?] it will be requisite for Christians, in a doubtful case, at their utmost perils, to adhere to the guides of the Church, against their lawful Sovereigns. But, if this his answer, that the Prince may suppress the Apostolical power of the Clergy, when this goeth against other our Lords or the Apostles Laws, be unsatisfying to the great difficulty he proposeth, I know not what other can possibly be returned to that his objection. And I wonder that this considerative man, who holds not the Pope to be Antichrist, or the Hierarchy of the Church to be the followers of Antichrist, should make such a supposition as this: that the Apostolical Succession of the Clergy should oppose our Lords or the Apostles laws, so far, as that we shall depend on the Laity to restore them, and to protect Christianity against their Guides. §. 205 The fifth is Dr. Heylin. Whose testimonies justifying King Edward and Queen Elizabeth's reforming by their own sole authority; Of Doctor Heylin. or only with the advice of some few of their Clergy, where they perceived that the rest would not comply, See before, §. 129. Yet, this their reforming I have showed to have been, for some part of it, in matters of Doctrine and Faith. To which former testimonies I will add here; Reform. J●stisted, p. 86. 1. First, what he saith concerning the Clergies not having any lawful power to conclude any thing in Spiritual matters that may bind King or Subject, till the Royal authority confirmeth it; contrary to the first Thesis. It is true (saith he) the Clergy in their Convocation can do nothing now, but as their do are confirmed by the King's authority. And I conclude; it stands with reason, that it should be so. For since the two Houses of Parliament can conclude nothing, which may bind either King or Subject in their civil rights, until they be made good by the royal assent; so neither is it fit nor safe, that the Clergy should be able, by their Constitutions and Synodical Acts, to conclude both Prince and People in Spiritual matters [what not in such, as Prince and People grant to entrench upon no civil Right?] until the stamp of Royal Authority be imprinted on them. [What if such supreme Governor be an Heretic, an Arrian, an Anabaptist, & c? Ib. p. 84.2. ] 2. What he saith concerning the King of England's having lawful power to act without his Clergy; as the Clergy, having conferred on him all their power, which they formerly enjoyed in their own capacity. Which was Philpot's Plea recited before, §. 168. contrary to the Second Thesis. The Kings of England (saith he) had a further right as to this particular; which is a power conferred upon them by the Clergy (whether by way of recognition, or concession, I regard not here) by which the Clergy did invest the King with a supreme authority, not only of confirming their Synodal Acts not to be put in execution without his consent, but in effect to devolve on him all that power which firmly they enjoyed in their own capacity [amongst which Powers (p. 85.) he nameth this, To reform such Errors and Corruptions, as are expressly contrary to the word of God] And to this we have a parallel case in the Roman Empire; in which the supreme Majesty of the State was vested in the Senate and People of Rome, till by the Law, which they called Lex Regia, they transferred all their power on Caesar and the following Emperors. Which Law being passed, the Edicts of the Emperor were as binding, as the Senatus-consulta had been before. Whence came that memorable Maxim in Justinians Institutes, Quod Principi placuerit, legis habet vigorem. The like may be affirmed of the Church of England. The Clergy had self authority in all matters which concerned Religion; and by their Canons and Determinations did bind all the Subjects; till by acknowledging King Henry the Eighth for the Supreme Head, and by the Act of Submission not long after following, they transferred that power upon the King and his Successors. After which time whatsoever the King or his Successors did in the Reformation, as it had virtually the power of the Convocation; so was it as good in law, as if the Clergy in their Convocation particularly and in terminis had agreed upon it. And though in most of their proceed toward Reformation the Kings advised with such Bishops as they had about them, or could assemble without trouble; yet was there no necessity, that all or the greatest part of the Bishops should be drawn together for that purpose, no more than it was anciently for the godly Emperors to call together the most part of the Bishops in the Roman Empire for the establishing of the matters which concerned the Church; or for the godly Kings of Judah, to call together the greatest part of the Priests and Levites, before they acted any thing in the Reformation of those corruptions and abuses, which were crept in amongst them. Thus Dr. Heylin, p. 84. §. 206 Indeed elsewhere he seemeth to put some limitations to the Prince's acting in such matters without or against their Clergy; but then these limitations are such, as that the reforming Prince's acts have transgressed his Rules. To this purpose he saith, p. 80, 81. That, whereas Reformation may be, first, in corruption of manners or abuses in Government; secondly, in matters practical; thirdly, in points of Doctrine; 1. First, That if the things to be reform be either corruptions in manners, or neglect of public duties to Almighty God; be abuses either in Government, or in the parties governing; the King may reform this himself by his sole authority, though the whole body of the Clergy or the greatest part thereof should oppose him in it. 2. That if the practice prove to have been both ancient and universally received over all the Church; the King consulting with so many of his Bishops and others of his most able Clergy as he thinks fit to call unto him, and having their consent and direction in it, may in case of intermission or corruption, restore such practice to its primitive lustre [tho he do it against the major part of his Clergy or Synod, as you may see, p. 83.] 3. He intimates; That if the Reformation be in such point of Doctrine, as hath been before defined in a General Council or in particular Councils universally received and countenanced; the King consulting with some of his learned Bishops may enjoin it without or against a Synod. 4. But he saith: That if the Reformation be in such points of Doctrine, as have not been before defined in such manner; the King, only with a few of his Bishops and Learned Clergy though never so well studied in the point disputed, can do nothing in it. That belongs only to the whole body of the Clergy in their Convocation rightly called and constituted. So he saith, p. 85. That the King cannot determine Heresies. From this by necessary consequence it follows: That if any point of doctrine hath been determined by a former General Council (I add, or lawful superior Council) the King neither against, nor without, (I add, nor with) the major part of his Clergy, can reform, or establish the contrary of, such doctrine. §. 207 Now to reflect op the Drs. Limitations. Concerning the two last, I leave it to your judgement, whether, in the instances made above, the contrary to several doctrines determined by former lawful General, or other superior, Councils, have not been established by our reforming Princes, without, or also against, the major part of their Clergy. And again; whether other doctrines not determined by any former lawful Council, yet have not thus also, without any such consent, been established by them. Both which Dr. Heylin condemneth. Again, concerning all these limitations, I ask; when all or the major part of Clergy affirmeth, that such things are not corruptions in manners, nor abuses in Government; that such practices are not primitive, nor universal; that such doctrines are not formerly so determined; and none or a smaller part of the said Clergy saith the contrary: How will Dr. Heylin here direct the King's Supremacy? Will he here allow him, after hearing all, to follow his own judgement? Or that of the fewer against his Synod, or the major part thereof? It seems in some things he will not allow it; (See Limitation the fourth) and it seemeth unreasonable to be allowed in any of the rest. For why should not a Synod discern corruption in manners, as well as he, or some few? Or why may not he mistake and miscall their reason, passion, or partiality? But if the Prince follow the major part of his Clergy in their judgement of what are corruptions, what are formerly defined etc. than cannot the Prince be said or supposed to reform such corruptions etc. against this major part; whose judgement in this Reformation of them he followeth. §. 208 The last I shall propose to your considering is Dr. Fern, Of Doctor Pern. Exam. Cham 9 c. 19 §. p. 290. who speaketh somewhat more particularly in this matter. He, first, affirmeth indeed in behalf of the Clergy, that the Bishops and chief Pastors of the Church are the immediate, proper and ordinary, Judges in defining and declaring what the Laws of Christ be for Doctrine and Discipline.— And, That they have a coercive power in a Spiritual restraint of those that obstinately gainsay, as far as the power of the Keys, put into their hands by Christ, for Spiritual binding and losing, will reach. And that this power is coercive or binding upon all such as are willing to be Christian and continue in the Society of the Church [I suppose therefore upon Christian Princes also, if obstinately gainsaying] And 20. §. He quoteth, 1. Eliz. 1. That the judging of Heresy is restrained, for Heresies past, to the Declaration of the first General Councils, and for such as shall arise, to the assent of the Clergy in their Convocation. And §. 15. he saith: It is a mistake to think, that the Prince by his supreme power in Spiritual things is made supreme Judge of Faith, and decider of all Controversies thereunto belonging, and may ordain what he thinks fit in matters of Religion. — Again, Ibid. he affirmeth; that the Prince's giving public establishment [to the doctrine defined by the Clergy and evidenced to him] is not in order, to our believing (as the Romanists use fond to reproach us, in saying our belief follows the State;) but to our secure ind free profession and exercise of Religion. For Kings and Princes are not Ministers by whom we believe, as Pastors of the Church are. 1. Cor. 3.9. And §. 21. That we must attend to the evidence of truth given in or propounded by the Pastors of the Church, who have commission to do it in order to our believing; and must yield obedience to the establishment of the Sovereign, either by doing and conforming thereunto, or by suffering for not doing according thereunto. And §. 25. That it is the office of the Pastors of the Church to evidence what is truth and conformable to Scripture, and that in order both to our and to the Prince's believing.— Again §. 21. he affirmeth, that the immediate and ordinary judgement of matters of Religion belongs to Bishops and Pastors of the Church in order to our believing: but that a secondary judgement is necessary in the Sovereign; for his establishing by Laws that which is evidenced to him upon the judgement and advice of the Pastors of the Church [or (as §. 23.) for his being satisfied, that what is propounded as Faith and Worship is according to the law of Christ, before he use or apply his authority to the public establishment of it:] and this upon a double reason. [the first of which is] In respect of his duty to God, whose Laws and Worship he is bound to establish by his own Laws within his dominions, and is accountable for it, if he do it amiss; as the Kings of Israel and Judah were. §. 209 But then he saith these things (further) in behalf of the Supremacy of the Prince, which seem to reduce the Clergy's power into a very narrow compass, and to render it uneffective toward the Subjects of the Church, unless thro' the coacting of the Prince. He saith then▪ 1. That Princes are not bound to follow the directions of the Clergy any further than they are evidenced to them. See 9 c. §. 21. Princes are not mere Executioners of the determinations and decrees of the Church Pastors, nor bound blindly or peremptorily to receive and establish, as matter of Faith and Religion, whatsoever they define and propound for such. But they are to do their work so, as it may by the demonstration of truth be evidenced to the Sovereign Power. That Princes are not bound to take the directions of the whole Clergy, or of a Synod, where they fear the Synod will not go aright. 2. c. 8. §. Reformation of God's Worship (saith he) may be warrantably done without a foregoing Synodical vote (p. 73.) especially when there is just cause of fear that the most of them that should meet are apparently obnoxious to factious interests: And (p. 72.) If the Prince by the law of God stands bound to establish within his dominions whatsoever is evidenced to him, by faithful Bishops and Learned men of the Church, to be the law of Christ, shall he not preform his known duty, till the vote of a major part of a Synod give him leave to do it? [And here I suppose Dr. Fern will grant, that the Prince is bound also to establish Christ's Law (in which he is accountable if he do amiss 9 c. §. 21.) whenever it should happen to be evidenced to him by any other, though none of, or contrary to, the Clergy; provided, that be first consult and hear the reasons of some at least of his Clergy.] 3. That Princes may prohibit the decrees even of General Councils, when they are evidenced to them non docere legem Christi (9 c. 28. §. General Councils being the greatest and highest means of direction, which Kings can have in matters of Religion, but still with the limitation quatenus docent legem Christi [of which I suppose the Prince must judge] it being possible, that the major part should be swayed by factious or worldly interests; therefore Kings and Emperors (saith he) may have cause given them, upon evidence of things unduly carried, to use their supreme power for forbidding of their decrees: as was done by Theodosius against the second Council of Ephesus, and by the Kings of France against the Conventicle of Trent, forbidding the decrees of it to be received for the space of forty years. 4ly 9 c. 21. §. He approveth— The concession of the Clergy under Henry the Eighth, in binding themselves by promise in Convocation in verbo Sacerdotis, not to enact or promulge or execute any new Canons or Constitutions without the King's assent. [Which assent, were it required only for securing the Prince, that nothing be acted in such Synods prejudicial to his civil rights, 'tis willingly allowed; but it is extended further, for the Prince's prohibiting any other decrees whatever, when not evidenced to him to be made juxta legem Christi; against which if any thing be done in his dominions, he remaineth accountable to God, as you have seen before.] §. 210 Now, to reflect on what Dr. Fern hath said. He seemeth 1. first to grant that the Clergy can publicly establish nothing against or without the Prince's consent. So that whatever they cannot evidence to the Prince, that so he may concur to the publishing thereof; they are hindered from promulgating or evidencing it to the people: So that they are in such a manner the ordinary Judges and Definers of Controversies &c. as that their definitions, if not evidenced to, may be suppressed by, the Prince, nor aught to come abroad to their flocks. And how consists this with what he saith 9 c. §. 21. That, in order to our believing, we must attend to the evidence of truth given in or propounded [I suppose he meaneth, to us] by the Pastors of the Church? Again; how consists this with the Clergy's coercive power (9 c. 19 §.) upon the Prince, if Christian, when obstinately gainsaying them? Unless his gainsaying can never be called obstinate? Will not this follow from hence, that the Clergy might not promulgate Anti-Arrianisme in the Empire, until they had evidenced it (i. e. by his approbation thereof) to Constantitus the then Emperor? 2. When he saith, That a Prince is not bound to take the directions of the whole Clergy, or of a Synod, but only of some faithful Bishops, etc. when he hath just cause to fear faction in such Synods; he seems in this only to keep a gap open for justifying they passed Reformation, and, in effect, to affirm, that the Prince may go therein against his Clergy. For since the Clergy is a subordinate and regularly-united body, he that taketh directions only from some of them, whom he knows or doubts and fears to be different in their judgement from the main body, taketh directions not from the Clergy, but from those that are against them, as hath been laid down in the sixth Thesis. I mean against them, that are the Judges in Spiritual matters, and the Definers of things in Controversy, and Judges of Heresy, what hath been, or aught to be, condemned, as such. Without whom therefore the Prince cannot certainly know, what is, or is not, such. As for that which is said, that the establishments of the Prince are not in order to our believing; if Dr. Fern meaneth, that the Prince doth not propose, what is evidenced to him to be the law of Christ, to his Subjects, with a requiring of them that they should believe, that it is the law of Christ; the contrary is clear at least in the practicals enjoined, all which necessarily involve Faith. See Chur. Gover. 2. Part, 34. §. 3. Part, 12. §. But if he meaneth, that the Subjects cannot justly be necessitated to believe, what the Prince establisheth: so neither are they, what the Clergy establisheth, in his, opinion; who I think alloweth to all men judicium disoretivum in respect of any Church-authority. 3. The Prince thus establishing Church-matters, not upon the Clergy's authority, but upon evidence; he seems equally to oblige the Prince to establish them, by whomsoever evidenced to him, or by his own search discovered: for what mattereth it to the evidence, who bringeth it? And then how is the Prince's judgement said to be secondary in respect to the Clergy? Indeed, if the Prince could always be certain in his evidence, so as not to mistake, to think something evidenced to him, when indeed it is not, and not to think other things sufficiently evidenced, when they are: so, there were less hazard, in leaving Church-matters thus to his disposal. But since things are much otherwise; and evidencing truths to any one, by reason of different understandings, education, passions and interest, is a thing very casual; so that, what is easily evidenceable to another, may happen not to be so to the Sovereign power; when not patiented enough to be informed; misled and prepossessed by a faction; not so capable as some others, by defect of nature or learning; facile to be persuaded by the last Speaker, &c: what an uncertain and mutable condition would Church-affairs be put in (as we see they have been here in England since the times of Henry the Eighth) when all the influence of the authority of the Clergy upon the people is cast upon this evidenceing first of their matters to the present Sovereign Power. §. 211 Concerning Theodosius' Act urged by Dr. Fern, the Story in brief is this. The second Ephesine Council was General in its Representation, but not in the free votes of the Representatives, nor in the acceptation thereof by all or the major part of Catholic Churches. In it, paucis imprudentibus (about some Ninety in all) obviantibus sacramento verae divinitatis & humanitatis Jesu Christi by necessary consequence (which was established in the Council of Nice superior to this in number, and universally accepted) Ex iis, qui convenerant, rejectis aliis (amongst which the Legates of the Bishop of Rome and Western Churches) aliis subscribere coactis a militibus cum fustibus & gladiis, reclusis in ecclesia usque ad vesperam. Upon such reasons the Bishop of Rome, See cons. Chalced. Act. 1. and th' Synod of the Occidental Churches with him, not accepting the decrees of this Council supplicated the Emperor, See Leo. Epist. 23. ad Theod. not to confirm, but cassate, the Acts thereof, and defendere contra haraeticos inconcussum ecclesiae statum, sending him the Canons of the Council of Nice. Now thus a Prince both may and aught to cassate the Acts of an illegal Council, (such as you see this is but now described to be) when a major Ecclesiastical power, I mean the greater part of the Church Catholic, declareth it to him to be factious, and opposing the truth and definitions of former General Councils universally accepted. Neither doth the Prince. herein exercise any Supremacy, but that which all allow; namely the defending and protecting of the Church's judgements. But therefore a Prince may not oppose the Acts of a Council when himself, or a few others, against the main body of the Church, judge it to have been factious; or to have opposed, or not to have sufficiently evidenced, the truth. The former was the case of Theodosius: The later, of the Reformers. Of which Theodosius, how religious an observer he was of the Church's decrees; and how free from challenging any such Supremacy, as to alter or establish any thing against them; see his cautious message to the first Ephesine Council when he sent Candidianus to preside therein. Concil. Epoes'. Tom. 1. — Eâ lege Candidianum Comitem ad sacram vestram Synodum abire jussimus, ut, cum quaestionibus & controversiis quae circa fidei dog mata incidant nihil quicquam commune habeat. Nefas est enim qui S. Episcoporum Catalogo ascriptus non est, illum ecclesiasticis negotiis & consultationibus sese immiscere. From which all that I would gain is this; That Theodosius was of opinion, that no Lay-person whatsoever might so far interest himself in Religious and Episcopal Controversies (not, as to make himself Arbitrator of the Conciliary proceed to see that the votes thereof be free from Secular violence, and all things therein regularly carried, etc. for this is his duty who beareth that Sword, which keepeth men most in awe; but) as to make himself Arbitrator of the Councils Definitions; to examine, whether they are made secundum, or contra, legem Christi; and to prohibit them, when not evidenced to him by the Council to be so; because he is Custos utriusque Tabulae: for in these things it is his duty to submit to whatever is the judgement of those, who are appointed by Christ to interpret to Princes his Law. A Prince therefore may void the Acts of a Council freely, on this account; because such Council is unduly carried, and its decrees not accepted by the Catholick-Church, and so because its doctrines are not the doctrines of the Church: but never on this account; because such Council hath made some definition to him seeming contrary to the Law of Christ; or hath not evidenced, to him, their definition to have been according to it. So that a lawful Regal Supremacy, in confirming any definitions of the Clergy made in Spiritual matters, omitteth that clause of limitation, which is every where put in by Dr. Fern, [when evidenced to it to be the law of Christ] or [when the law of Christ is not evidenced to be contrary to their definitions] which is indeed the chief Pillar of the Reformation: and changeth it into this limitation [when evidenced to it to be the Law or Judgement or Sentence of the Church.] The instance in the King of France his forbidding the decrees of the Council of Trent hath been largely spoken to in Chur. Gover. 4. Part, §. 212 64. §. 7. n. 1 No decrees of that Council concerning matters of Faith or Doctrine were opposed by the French King, but only some decrees concerning Reformation. 2 His opposition of it further, than he can pretend it to have some way encroached on his civil rights, is, not justifiable; and, by his own Clergy, as well as the rest of the world, disallowed. §. 213 Lastly, the instance in the good Kings of Judah, inculcated so frequently by all these Writers, is copiously spoken-to in Succession of Clergy, §. 38.68. 1. As the Kings of Judah had a charge of conserving the true Religion by their coactive power, with temporal punishments on offenders; and were justly blamed for their defects herein: So had the Priests, by their coercive power, with their Spiritual censures; and were as justly unblamable, as the Prince, in any neglect thereof.— 2. It cannot be showed in holy writ, that the Princes of Judah ought not and did not both, in their Reformations of Religion, ask counsel of the Priests, and exactly follow their advice and decrees; except in such matters of duty, as were not controverted at all, nor contradicted by the Priest. Now where no doubt is made by any party, there needs no consultation; and the Prince may tell the Priest of his unquestioned duty, without ask his leave.— 3. It cannot be showed, that the Princes of Judah ever reform any thing against the judgement of the whole body, or of the major part of the Priests. I mean those Priests, who continued in their former profession of the Law of Moses, and did not professedly relinquish it, and openly apostatise to Idolatry: with whom being extra ecelesiam, the Prince had nothing to do. — 4. It cannot be showed there, that the Priests might not lawfully have reform Religion, without, or against, the Prince; nor that they did not at some times endeavour it with inflicting their Spiritual censures; though successless herein, whilst opposed by the Temporal power. We are to take heed of negative arguments from Scripture [such a thing is not said there, therefore it was not] but rather ought to infer [the contrary to this is not said there, therefore it might be.]— 5 The King's part in the Reformation being acted with Temporal power, therefore was successful and went thro' with the business: and having the chief, or only, success, therefore is most spoken of, especially, in those Books, which were written for Histories of the Kings Acts. And indeed when have not Princes (by reason of this their Secular power) had the greatest reputation for altering of Religion, even where the Clergy have been most active? See the doctrine of Bishop Bramhal and Dr. Hammond in this point of Supremacy set down already in Chur. Gover. 1. Part, §. 39 etc.— And of Bishop Bramhal in Cathol. Thes. Head. 9 §. 17. §. 214 The Ecclesiastical Supremacy of these Princes transcending that ch l●eaged by the Patriarches. Thus much concerning the English Reformations under the three Princes, Henry the Eighth, Edward the Sixth, and Queen Elizabeth; what manner of Ecclesiastical Supremacy was conceded to, or recognized in, them; what, exercised by them. Where it is evident, that though these Princes pretended only to translate upon themselves the Supremacy formerly used by the Patriarch (not forgetting to seize on most of the profits thereof:) yet theirs was far from being restrained within the same bounds, as the Patriarches was. For, whether we review, the pretended innovations introduced into the Church Catholic, before, or those introduced since the Council of Trent, by the Patriarch's, concurrence, We cannot say of them; that He, without, out, or assisted only with some few of, the Clergy imposed them upon the world by his single authority, without, or contrary to, the votes, of the major part of the Clergy, as King Edward and Queen Elizabeth did: Who had they called a Synod of their Clergy, and then behaved themselves in it, as Constantine in the Council of Nice, i. e. left all in pure Spiritual matters to their disposal; judge what would have been the issue. But it seems, by the proceed forementioned in this Discourse, that the Secular Supremacy took it to be the Prince's right to establish in their dominions, with, or without, the major part of the Clergy (which, they were instructed, might fall away from the truth, a tenant the Patriarch owns not) what they apprehended to be the Law of Christ, upon evidence of Scripture (i. e. to them so seeming) by whomsoever manifested unto them. From which apprehensions, in single, and unstudied, persons, very mutable, and having no such fixedness, as the body of the Church hath (being tied by so many subordinations to several degrees of Superiors,) newer and newer Reformations for ever do flow and multiply without end, as we see at this day. And so it is also, that these Acts of Supremacy coming from the hands of the Temporal power, whatever way they incline, have much more strength and validity, in case of opposition, than those coming from the Spiritual; this Sword not wounding, to sense, so deep, as the other; and therefore is such a Supremacy, where Prince's judgements are liable to mistakes, much the more dangerous. §. 215 All which ill-consequences the Protestant Princes of Germany (who, Several Protestants denying such a Supremacy du● to Princes. being in some respects subordinate to another, could not so well settle this Supremacy on themselves) in the dawning of the Reformation did well foresee; and were as loath to acknowledge the Emperor Supreme, as the Pope: Nor would they ever allow of this Title assumed by Henry the Eighth; out of a jealousy, that Charles the Fifth should claim the same. And for this reason, it is thought that, no Accord was made, tho much attempted, between them and this King. See Lord Herbert's Hist. p 378, and 448. The Protestants of Germany (saith he) would not allow the King's Supremacy, lest they should infer an investing of the same authority in the Emperor, whose absolute power they seemed to fear, more, than that of the Pope himself. And this suspicion alienated secretly the mind of our King: who saw, that, if he embraced their Reformation, they would abridge his power [i. e. regulate or alter the point of his Supremacy.] §. 216 The same reluctance against such Regal Supremacy was in Calvin and other Reformers, as I have showed before; See before, §. 37. and hath remained still in the reformed Presbyterian Clergy of Scotland, and in those Sects called Puritanical in England, and elsewhere (which is said to have rendered both Queen Elizabeth and King James much more averse from the Presbyterian Government and Discipline:) who discharging the authority of the Pope, of Councils, such as the Church hath had, of Bishops; yet have endeavoured to reserve the Supremacy, as touching all Ecclesiastical Affairs to the Officers of their particular Churches: as the power of calling and constituting their Assemblies at time and place as they think fit; the making of Ecclesiastical Constitutions and Ceremonies; the correcting and ordering all things pertaining to the Congregation, though without the King's consent, and against his will; unless he be pleased to be included in the number of the Church Officers, there to enjoy a single vote; requiring the Civil Magistrate to be subject to this their power. To which purpose are those Positions of theirs, Seatch. Discipline, 2. l. 1. c. As the Ministers, and others of the Ecclesiastical State are subject to the judgement and punishment of the Magistrate in external things, if they offend; so ought the Magistrates to be subject to the Kirk Spiritually, and in Ecclesiastical Government. And to submit themselves to the Discipline of the Kirk, if they transgress in matter of Conscience and Religion. All men as well Magistrates as Inferiors, aught to be subject to the judgement of the National Assemblies of this Country in Ecclesiastical causes, Scot Disc. 2. l. 12. c. without any re or appellation to any Judge Civil, or Ecclesiastical, within the Realm. See Dr. Heylin's Reform. Just. p. 88, and Rogers on Art. 37. p. 216. and 218. and the two Books of the Scottish Discipline. To which may be added those passages of the English Presbyterian in their Confession of Faith, An. Dom. 1647. cap. 30, and 31. which say,— That the Lord Jesus as King and Head of his Church, hath therein appointed a Government in the hand of Church-officers, distinct from, the Civil Magistrate.— And, that, if the Magistrates be open enemies to the Church, the Ministers of Christ of themselves by virtue of their office may meet together in such Assemblies,— And there may Ministesrially determine Controversies of Faith; set down rules for the better ordering of the public worship of God and Government of his Church; receive complaints, and authoritatively determine the same. Which decrees and determinations, if consonant to the word, are to be received [and therefore may be divulged] with reverence and submission, for the power whereby they are made, as [this power] being an Ordinance of God. All this (they affirm) the Church-officers may do of themselves, by virtue of their office, if the Magistrate be an open enemy to the Church. And all this they did, King Charles' Supremacy giving no consent thereto, but opposing it. And then for the meaning of open enemy, I have reason to suppose, they will pronounce a Popish, an Arrian, any heretical, Prince such, as well (though perhaps not every way so much) as an Heathen. §. 217 Lastly, The same reluctance also was in those Bishops who first conceded such Supremacy to Henry the Eighth. Who, as at the fy they swallowed the Oath of it, not without some straining: so afterward, when, by long experience they had seen such Church-laws issuing from it, as they thought very grievous and damageable to the Church, and found uncontrollable by their power, they very stoutly, to the loss of their Bishoprics, made resistance to the same Oath, in Queen Elizabeth's days: and also in queen Mary's days, upon some respiring, took care to reverse as well the Supremacy of Henry the Eighth, as the Injunctions of Edward the Sixth. And those Bishops only, who came to their Bishoprics and Church-Government by the high-hand of such Supremacy, have since maintained it. CHAP. XIV. The CONCLUSION. §. 218 HAving thus brought this whose Discourse of Church Government to an end, Conclusion of this whole Discourse of Chur. Gou. I pray you consider a lit with me, how matters stand with the Reformation generally in application thereto. §. 219 Where Concerning the benefit that may be hoped for from a future free General Council for the settling of present Controversies. 1. First it seemeth clear: That in Controversies of Religion (which Christ hath foretold shall arise) and in contests concerning the true sense of his word, he hath not left his people under the Gospel without some visible Judge thereof, beside the words of the Gospel; since he did not leave his people under the Law without such Judge, beside the words of the Law. See what hath been said of this in Success. of Clergy, §. 6. etc. And, in such Controversies concerning the meaning of the Scriptures, for any party to fly only to the same Scriptures to judge this matter between them and their adversaries, is, as if Titius and Sempronius, suing one another at the Law, would have no other judge in the matter, but Justinian's Code or Pandects, about the meaning of which they are already in the debate. 2. But, if it seem reasonable, that, in such Controversy concerning the understanding of Scripture, there should be some other Judge besides Scripture; secondly it is out of question, that the Church Catholic, which hath such ample promises from our Saviour, should be this Judge sooner, than any particular person or Church therein: and, if the Church Catholic, then a legal General Council thereof; since this is the highest and ultimate way, whereby the Church Catholic is capable of declaring her judgement; as hath been showed in the 2. Part, §. 22. etc. 3. Hence therefore 3ly are the Reformed forced, as it were, in their debates of Religion to refer their matters to, and not to decline, the decisive judgement of a future legal and free General Council. 4. But this seemeth by consequence to oblige them somewhat further; and that in this their appeal to, and acquiescence in, a future General Council, they cannot reasonably refuse the judgement of such Councils forepast, as have been legally General. 5. And again 5ly that, to denominate any former Councils to have been such, they cannot rationally require any fuller conditions, than have been set down in 2. Part, §. 4. unless they will make either no Councils at all; or not all those, which themselves allow, to have been General. And 6ly if they will thus stand to the judgement of former legal General Councils; than it seems they ought also to stand to the doctrines, which are cleared to them to be held and taught by the Church Catholic of that age, wherein they reform: since we may presume, that had a Council thereof been collected in the same times; they would in it have testified the same doctrines, which the Catholic Church then held., But thus the Reformation will be cast; since I think it is sufficiently cleared in 2. Part, §. 30. etc. that the doctrines they opposed, at least for the most of them, were not only the Tenants of the Roman or other. Churches adhering to it, but of the whole Church Catholic of that time: a thing which is of great weight, and ought diligently to be examined. And, 7ly, if they will submit to a General Council; I do not see how, in the absenee of a General, their duty doth not bind them to submit also to a Patriarchal, Council; as being, though inferior to General, yet superior to any Provincial, or National, one, within the same Patriarchy. And, if submit to such; I see not why they should reject the judgement of the Council of Trent, as to the Protestant Controversies free and unforced: there needing to be used no illegal or indirect proceed herein; because the Fathers, in condemning these, did unanimously agree; as hath been showed at large in Par. 4. §. 70. by Soave's testimony in particular to these points. §. 220 But, notwithstanding the fair inclinations the Reform (I mean some of their writers, desiring that nothing here may be charged on any further, than proved by some testimonies in the other places of this discourse, which are here referred to) may seem, to have to a final decision of differences; and the happy issue to their cause they seem to hope-for from the sentence of such a future Council, general and free, could it once be procured: Yet there are not a few things, which well considered do discover their diffidence in any such trial; and no such submission in them to such Council, could it be assembled, as is necessary to the ending of contentions. As namely these following. 1. That, for the Councils which have been held already in the Church, they have so limited the obligation to their authority, and clogged it with such conditions (which you may be pleased to review in 2. Par. §. 36, 37. &c:) that, in respect of these, they have reserved to themselves liberty to yield, or withdraw, their obedience, as they see fit. From which we may gather, that, if they see need thereof, they will in like manner limit the future, and so render it as unobliging to them, as former have been. 2. That they have been so scrupulous about the Universality, legal actings, etc. of past Councils beyond what seems requisite (See 2. Par. §. 4.) that, of eighteen or not much fewer, General Councils, which the other side accepts, they acknowledge only four or very few more: and not these four for all those decrees, wherein the rest of the Church admits them. See 4. Par. §. 92.95. 3. That they maintain, that, though all the church-guide never shall, yet the major part of the Church guides and of such Councils may, dangerously err, to the imposing of false belief and false worship, and pars melior a majore vinci. See 2. Part, §. 29. Which tenant will overthrow the authority of such future Council also; because it can hardly happen in so great n Body, but that there will be some dissenters; and then they will not be tied to a major part. 4. That, for a future Council they demand such a one, for the universality of it, as probably can never be had: and such voters therein, as is contrary to the former customs of the Church, and such other conditions, as are several ways unreasonable, and destructive of having Church-matters governed by the Church. See, concerning these, the 4. Part, §. 65, 66. etc. Thomas, were all such their conditions observed, excepting only one, that nothing done in such Council should oblige, till their consent first obtained, I see not, but that things will thus also go against them because as the major part of the Clergy of Christianity, so of the Laity and Princes, were they made the Judges in that Council, are opposite to the Reformation. 5. That they do set up the authority of Provincial or National Synods, in some cases, See 2. Part, § 29.44. against General (the ill consequences of which introducing such an Aristocratical, or rather so many several Monarchical, Governments into the Church, as there are several Metropolitans or Primates, see in 2. Part, §. 78. n. 2.) and do hold this a sufficient foundation of Reformation; though indeed so much, if the things said in this 5th Part stand good, cannot be pleaded for it. Now all these guards and fences of the Reformed seem to me to render a future Council, were it never so universal and free, of none effect, as to ending Controversies; unless it pass on their side: and again seem to argue an Autocatacrisis in them, as to the judgement of the Church Catholic, and of Councils; viz. that they apprehend, they should be cast by those, whom yet they show a willingness to be tried by. Especially when as, after now an 140 years divulging of their doctrines, their reasons, and their demonstrations; they see, that, though at the first (perhaps out of novelty) their opinions made a wonderful progress and growth: yet, for above half of this age, the Reformation hath stood at a stay; and of late hath rather lost ground, and is grown decrepit and much abated of its former bulk and stature. §. 221 To conclude. In such a rejection of, or aversion from, the Church's judgement, let none think himself secure, in relying on the testimony of his conscience or judgement; 1. either that he doth nothing against it; which security many of all sects, not only living, but dying, have (for sickness ordinarily hath no new revelations of truth in it) and what sect is there, that hath not had Martyrs? The Roman party many at Tyburn, and the Protestant, in Smithfield; and even Atheism itself hath had those that have died for it, Vaninus, and others: 2. Or that he hath taken sufficient care to inform it; which thing also all sects show themselves confident-in. I say let none think himself secure in any of these things, so long as his conscience witnesseth still to him this one thing, namely, his disobedience and inconformity to the Church Catholic. I mean to the major part of the Guides thereof, as formerly explained in Chur. Gou. 2. Part, §. 8. etc. 24. etc. (a disobedience which Luther and the first Reformers could not but acknowledge; Epistle to Melancthon 145. Nos discessionem a toto mundo (saith facere coacti sumus.) And let him know, that his condition is very dangerous, when he maketh the church-guide of his own time, or the major part thereof, uncommunicable-with in their external profession of Religion; when, for the maintaining of his opinions, he gins to distinguish and divide between the doctrine of Scripture, and the doctrine of the Church; between the doctrines of the Catholic Church of the former ages, and of the Catholic Church of the present; between the Church's orthodoxness in necessaries, and in non-necessaries, to salvation; when he gins to maintain the authority of an inferior ecclesiastical judge, against a superior; or of a minor part of the church-guide, against a major. Which whosoever doth, though perchance he wanteth not many companions, had need to be sure, and sure again, that he is in the right: because this thing, in the day of judgement, will hinder all those, that err, from pleading invincible or inculpable ignorance, when as they do grant, both that God hath given them, beside the Scriptures, guides of their Faith; and that they have in their judgement departed from these guides, i. e, from a major part of them; which, in a Court consisting of many, is the legal Judge. I say; In the Name of God let every Religious Soul take heed of such Autocatacrises. FINIS. SIR, WEll knowing your Fidelity and Loyalty to your Prince; lest you should be offended with some expressions in this discourse concerning the limited authority of the supreme Civil Power in Spiritual matters, I must pre-acquaint you with these three things. 1. That there is nothing touched herein, concerning the Temporal Prince his supreme power in all Civil or Temporal matters whatever; nor in such, as it is dubious, whether they be Spiritual or Temporal: but only concerning the Supremacy in things that are purely Spiritual and Ecclesiastical. Namely such, as Christianity hath de novo, by our Saviour's authority and commission, introduced into the world, and into the several Civil States thereof, which do voluntarily subject themselves unto its laws: and such, as the Church Governors, our Saviour's Substitutes from the beginning, have lawfully exercised in several Prince's dominions, when the same Princes have prohibited them the exercise of such things under pain of death. Which things you may see numbered by Bishop Carleton below § 3. or by Dr. Taylor, or by the King's Paper, Ibid. 2. That there is nothing asserted here concerning the lawfulness of any Spiritual power's using, or authorising any others to use, the material or temporal Sword in any case or necessity whatsoever; though it were in ordine ad Spiritualia. 3. That I know not of any Ecclesiastical powers in this Discourse denied to the Prince, but which (or at least the chiefest of which) all other Christian Princes, except those of the reformed States, do forego to exercise; and do leave to the management of the Clergy; and yet their Crowns, notwithstanding the relinquishing this power in Spirituals, subsist, prosper, flourish: And not any, but which the Kings of England have also foregone, before Henry the Eighth. Now; no more Supremacy in such Ecclesiastical matters, as are delegated by Christ to the Clergy, and are unalienable by them to any Secular power, can belong to the Princes of one Time, or of one Nation, than do to any other Prince of a former Time, or a divers Nation; Because what are thus the Church's Rights, no Civil or Municipal law of any Kingdom, in any time, can lawfully prejudice, diminish, or alter; Nor may any such Secular laws, made, be urged as authentical for showing what are, or are not, the Church's Rights. And therefore in respect of the foresaid Clergy-Rights the Kings of England can have no more privilege or exemption, than the King of France; nor, in England, Henry the Eighth, than Henry the Seventh; Nor can any person, in maintaining the Church's foresaid Rights, be any more now a disloyal Subject to his Prince in these, than he would have been in those, days. CORRIGENDA. PAg. 2. line 38. of Christians. p. 3 l. 16. to Heathen. p. 6. l. 15. l. 19 c. p. 8. l. 1. pag. 236. p. 35. l. 37. pag. 53. p. 38. l. 10. §. 24. p. 41. ult. from denying, p. 53. l. 16. pag. 34. p. 56. l. 17. Mariae, p. 106. l. 7. §. 340. p. 180. l. 18. Edward, the. p. 184. l. 5. §. 194. p. 210. l. 8. §. 204. p. 211. l. 10. §. 197. p. 215. l. 37. that tho no. p. 226. l. 22. their words. ANIMADVERSIONS ON THE EIGHT THESES Laid down, and the INFERENCES, Deduced from them, in a DISCOURSE ENTITLED Church-Government. PART. V. Lately Printed at OXFORD. They went out from Us, because they were not Us: for if they had been of Us, they would have no doubt have continued with Us; but they went out that they may be made manifest, that they were not all of Us. 1 Joh. 2.19. Sheldonian Theatre, Oxford OXFORD, Printed at the THEATER. Anno 1687. Imprimatur. JO. VENN Vicecan. Oxon. Jun. 2. 1687. To the UNIVERSITY READER. THESE Papers neither have, nor need any other recommendation, then that of the Cause which they maintain. They are extorted by the importunity of those Adversaries, who have endeavoured to wound us in all our nearest concerns, The Honour of our University, the Authority of our Church, and the Rights of our Sovereign. The Laborious Author of the Discourses spared no pains to shake the foundations of our Religion; and the designing Publisher has with no inconsiderable expense, endeavoured a farther advantage from them, by casting a reproach upon these Seminaries of our Education. But it is justly hoped, that their designs against the University will prove as successless as their attempts on the Church; Of which we know, that tho' the Rains descend, the Floods come, and the Winds blow, yet it cannot fall, for it is founded upon a Rock. The hopes of our Enemies abroad have been entertained, and the solicitude of our Friends awakened by the news of our Oxford Converts daily flocking into the bosom of the Roman Church. But we hope All men are by this time convinced that they deserve as little consideration for their Number, as they do regard for their accomplishments. No one need to be alarmed at the Desertion of Six or Seven Members, who shall consider their dependence on One who by the Magazines, which He had stored up against Us, shows that He has not now first changed his Complexion, but only let fall the Vizour. Nor ought we more to regard the Insinuations of those, who tell us of the secret Promises of such as have not openly Professed, as having no other ground but the confidence of the Reporters. But be it as it will, God covers us with his Feathers, and under his Wings will We trust; We will neither be afraid of the arrow that flieth by day, nor for the Pestilence that walketh in darkness: But we lest of all fear any danger from this present attempt of our Author, since the Regal power seems engaged with our Church in one common defence; For she is no farther concerned in this present Controversy, then as she is accused to have been too great a friend to the Prerogative of the Crown. And certainly that Doctrine which invades the just Rights of the Prince, can hope but for few Proselytes amongst those, who have constantly defended them in their Writings, asserted them in their Decrees, and upon all occasions vindicated them with their Swords. For We do not lie open to the imputation of a conditioned and distinguishing Loyalty, who have showed our readiness to imitate the glorious examples of our Fathers, and were prepared (had not Gods good Providence prevented our service) to have transcribed that Copy lately at Sedgmore, which they set us formerly at Edge-hill. And in truth our steady fidelity to the Prince is so unquestionable, that our Enemies have been pleased to ridicule what they could not deny, and have made Passive Obedience bear a part in our Charactery, when the Muse has been inclined to satire. As for our Author and his Theses there is nothing here advanced which was not in King Edward's time fully answered by Protestant Writers; and had he written in Henry the 8th's Reign, he might have received a Reply from a Roman Catholic Convocation; So vain is it to urge Us now with the stolen pretences of a Foreign Jurisdiction, which our Ancestors of the Roman Communion ejected with so Universal a consent, and which our Fathers of the Reformation resisted even unto death; I mean those Glorious Prelates, who here dying seal d the truth of our Religion with their Blood, and left it as a Legacy to us their Children, by us to be conveyed to the Generations yet to come. Animadversions on the Eight Theses etc. AS that Person, who would prove himself a genuine Son of the Church of England, had need of more Sincerity than this Editor showed, whilst He professed to be of Her Communion; so one, who has the ambition of appearing a potent Enemy against her, had need of greater Strength than he has either produced of his own, or borrowed from others, since he has been her declared Adversary. Had he continued still to dissemble his Faith, and affected an aequilibrium betwixt both Churches, His writings would have been more suitable to such a Character; where the attentive Reader will find the Church of England but weakly attacqed, and that of Rome as faintly vindicated. But since some Motives have prevailed with him to assume the Name of another Church, as that which he has left has no great cause to lament the loss of such a Member, so that which He would seem to have fled to will have little reason to boast that She has gained a Proselyte. For how plausibly soever He may discourse of Church-Autority, He abounds in too great a Plerophory of his own sense, to submit himself either to a Convocation at home, or Council abroad; and altho' he would appear an Enemy to Luther, he seems at this very time to be drawing up a novel Scheme of Doctrines, and modelling to himself a new Church. Hence it is that in one of his Treatises he has deserted the ancient Plea of Transubstantiation, upon which the Tridentine Fathers founded their Adoration of the Host; and from which all the great Champions of that Church have constantly deduced it. Hence his modifying the Council's Sacramentum into Res Sacramenti, his prescinding from the Symbols, his certain inferior cult only due to them, his stripping them even of the Schoolmens latricall, qualified, secondary, improper, accidental coadoration; and such other his abstractive Notions of that Worship, as do indeed befit a Nominal Philosopher, but have no agreement with the avowed doctrines and practices of the Roman Communion. Hence it is that in the Discourse we are now upon, We read nothing of the Dominus Deus Papa of the Canonists; Nothing of the Vicar of Christ; the Holy, Apostolic, and Infallible See which their former Writers have endeavoured to establish Jure divino; Nothing of the Supreme Pastor, Governor and Head of Christ's Church, the Successor of S. Peter, and other Titles which even our Representers of late (whose business it hath been to mollify) have furnished us with; No not so much as of the modest Bishop of Meauxes Primacy of S. Peter's chair and common Centre of Catholic Unity; but instead of these we are told of a Western Patriarch, one who pleads the Prescription of some Years for his Authority, and thinks himself hardly dealt with, pag. 214. that because He claims more than his due, that which is his due should be denied him. Hence it seems to be that He is so wary in giving us his own Opinions; that He disputes so much, and affirms so little; that he bounds all his Positions with so many limitations that they seem contrived on purpose for subterfuges; and that He very cautiously ventures not any farther than He thinks, tho' falsely, the Authority of our Writers will bear him out. Hence those Concessions (which will perhaps by that Party be judged over-liberall) §. 117 That Images, and so the veneration or worship of them were very seldom, if at all, used in the Primitive Church. That the public Communion was then most commonly, if not always, administered in both kinds unto the People. That the Divine Service which then, as now, was celebrated usually in the Latin or Greek Tongue, was much better in those days than now understood of the Common people. That the having the Liturgy, or Divine Service, or the Holy Scriptures in a known tongue is not prohibited, nor the using of Images enjoined; nor the Priest's administering, and the people's receiving the Communion in both kinds, if the Supreme Church-governors so think fit (and we say they ill discharge the Office of Church-governors, who do not think fit our Saviour's Institution should be observed) declared unlawful by any Canon of any Council. Ancient Council he means, for latter Councils have declared these unlawful. These are large grants from a Romanist, and which give a great shock to their so much magnified pretence of Universal Tradition. Had this Author lived in those Ages when the Secular Prince countenanced the beginnings of Reformation, He would have scarce lost any thing for his too rigorous adhaesion to the C. of Rome. For he thinks it probable that had the Reformation only translated the former Church Liturgies and Scriptures into a known tongue; §. 118 administered Communion in both kinds, thought fit not to use Images; changed something of practice only without any decession from the Church's Doctrines, the Church-governors would have been facile to licence these. Where by the way it seems something unintelligible how they should change practice without decession from Doctrines, if Doctrines enjoined such Practices, pag. 2. §. 2. and if according to him, Errors in practice always presuppose some Error in matter of Faith. But at least we may expect He would have outwardly complied, since he notes, That some outward compliance at the first, pag. 140. §. 123. of those Bishops, who made an open Opposition afterward, might be upon a fair Pretence, because the first Acts of the Reformation might not be so insupportable as the latter. Where it is worth our Observing, that the very first Act, which gave life to the Reformation, was shaking off all manner of Obedience to the See of Rome, than which I believe his Holiness, contrary to this Author's Sentiments, thinks no Act more unsupportable. These things considered, We could not have had a more easy Adversary than this Gentleman, and the Church has less reason to fear his open Opposition, than had he still continued in her bosom. For it seems not to be his Province to publish what is Material against us, but to publish Much. But, God be thanked, our Religion is not established upon so weak a basis, as to be overthrown by a few Theses unproved, and falsely applied. Nor is it any wonder if that arguer doth not convince, who uses for Principles Conclusions drawn from Praemisses, which the world never saw, and then assumes such things as every one acquainted with History is able to contradict. Certainly his University-Readers will not be very fond of the Conclusion of that Syllogism, whose Major is a petitio principii, & Minor a downright falsehood in matter of fact. They no doubt are surprised to find Consequents come before their Antecedents, and Church-Government part the 5th to have stepped into the World (somewhat immaturely methinks) before the other four. But the Lawfulness of the English Reformation was to be examined, and it would have took up too much time to show why he imposed upon us such a Test. It might therefore be thought seasonable enough to examine the Truth of his Theses, when he shall be pleased to communicate to us whence they are inferred. In the meanwhile, it may not be unuseful to consider what disservice he had done to our Cause, had his success aequaled the boldness of his attempt. After all his Theses and their Applications, his Correspondent Alpha's and Beta's, his perplexed Paragraphs, his intricate Paratheses, and his tedious Citations, what Doctrine of the Church of Rome has he established, or what principle of Ours has he disproven? Should we grant that the Clergy only have power in Controversies of Religion, that the Secular Prince has no Authority to reform Errors in the Church, that our Princes did wrongfully usurp such an Authority, and that our Reformation was not the act of the Clergy; will it hence follow (which yet is to be proved by this Author, ere he can persuade us to entertain any favourable Opinion of Popery) That the second Commandment ought to be expunged out of the Decalogue? that Idolatry is no Sin? or worshipping of Images no Idolatry? that Transubstantiation is to be believed in despite of Sense, Reason, Scripture, and Antiquity? the Service of God to be administered in an unknown tongue, as it were in mere contradiction to Saint Paul? and the Communion to be celebrated in one kind notwithstanding our Saviour's, Drink ye all of this. It is indeed our happiness, that the Reformation was carried on by the joint concurrence of the Civil and Ecclesiastical power; that We are united together by common Rules for Government and Worship agreed on by the Bishops and Presbyters in Convocation, and made Laws to us by the Authority of the Sovereign: We are always ready to prove that the Church of England being a National Church, and not Subject to any foreign Jurisdiction, owed no Obedience to the Bishop or Church of Rome, & therefore might without their leave reform herself, and that accordingly our Religion is established by such Laws as want no authority either Civil or Ecclesiastical, which they ought to have. This is a Plea which we shall be always prepared to justify; and a Blessing for which we thank God, and for the continuance of which we shall never cease to pray. But now had those which we esteem corruptions of the Roman Church never been cast out, or were they reestablished (which God in his mercy forbid) by as good authority as that by which they are now abolished; Yet even then we could not submit to such Determinations, and being concluded by an antecedent Obligation to God durst not obey even lawful authority commanding unlawful things. He therefore that would gain a Proselyte, who acts upon prudent and Conscientious principles, in vain entertains him with Schemes of Church-Government, since the things contested are such as no Government in the world can make lawful; It would be more rational to show (were not that an attempt long since despaired of) that the particular doctrines and practices to which we are invited, are agreeable to the word of God; or that it doth not concern us, whether they be, or not. For if either it may be proved, that the Errors of the Church of Rome were so great, that there was a necessity of reforming them, that every National Church has a right to reform herself, that this right of the Church of England in particular was unquestionable, that she used no other than this her lawful right, and that accordingly the Reformation was effected by the Major part of the then legal Church-governors: Or if in failure of this (which yet we say is far from being our case) it may be proved, that where evident Necessity requires, and the prevailing Errors are manifest, there the Civil power may lawfully reform Religion without the concurrence of the major part of the Clergy, for Secular Interests averse from Reformation; Or if lastly, supposing no such Reformation made by lawful authority, but the Laws which enjoin such erroneous Doctrines, remaining in their full force and vigour, every private Christian can plead an Exemption from his Obedience to them, by proving them evidently contradictory to the known laws of God; if any one of these Pleas are valid, all which have by our Writers been proved to be so beyond the possibility of a fair Reply, than Nothing which is aimed at in these Papers can affect us, and tho' the author would have showed more skin in proving his Question, yet he had still betrayed his want of prudence in the choice of it. By what hath been said, the Reader will be induced to think that these Papers do not so much concern the Church of England, as the State; and that a Reply to them is not so properly the task of a Divine, as of a Lawyer. The Civil power is indeed manifestly struck at, and an Answer might easily be fetched from Keble and Coke. He may persuade himself that he acts craftily, but certainly he acts very inconsistently, who erects a Triumphal Statue to his Prince, and at the same time undermines his Authority; in monumental Inscriptions gives him the glorious and astonishing Title of Optimus Maximus, and yet sets up a superior Power to his. If neither Loyalty nor gratitude could persuade him to speak more reverently, yet out of wariness he ought to have been more cautious in laying down such things, as seem to have an ill aspect on his Majesty's proceed. For it may seem very rash to deny, §. 5. p. 12. that the Prince can remove from the Exercise of his Office any of his Clergy for not obeying his Decisions in matters of a Spiritual Nature, when a Reverend Prelate suffers under such a Sentence; §. 7. p. 14. to assert that the Prince, ought not to collate to Benefices, where the Clergy have Canonical exceptions against the Person nominated, whilst a Friend of his thus qualified enjoys the benefit of such a Collation; to find fault with the Reformers that they gave their Prince leave to dispense with Laws and Constitutions Ecclesiastical, §. 28. p. 36. when he himself is in that case most graciously dispensed with. How far the Regal power extends itself in these cases, especially as it may be limited by the municipal laws of the Realm, I am not so bold as to determine; but where such Rights are claimed by the Sovereign, and actually exercised, there it becomes not the modesty of a private Subject to be so open and liberal in condemning them. But then above all he renders his Loyalty justly questionable, when he tells us it is disputed by the Roman Doctors, and leaves it a Question, Whether in case that a Prince use his coactive Jurisdiction in Spiritual matters against the Definitions of the Church, §. 16. p. 20. than the Pope hath not also virtually some Temporal coactive power against the Prince? namely to dissolve the Prince's coactive Power, or to authorize others to use a coactive power, against such a Prince in order to the good of the Church? Now I appeal to the judicious Reader, whether the substance of that infamous Libel, which was part of a late * See Sidney's Trial. Traytour's Indictment, and which was written by way of Polemical Discourse, as he pleaded, might not if managed by this Author's pen have been thus warily expressed; Whether in case that a Prince use his coactive Jurisdiction in Civil matters against Acts of Parliament, than the Parliament hath not also virtually some temporal coactive power against the Prince; namely, to dissolve the Prince's coactive power, or to authorise others to use a coactive power against such a Prince in order to the good of the State? Such bold Problems as these ought not to be left undecided; and one who had any zeal for his Prince, would scarce let the Affirmative side of the Quaestion pass without affixing a brand on it. These Expressions among others He might well be conscious would be offensive to any SIR of known Fidelity and Loyalty to his Prince; and therefore such person's good Opinion was to be courted in an Epistle Apologetic. But certainly it was expected that the kind Sir should read no farther than the Epistle; for if he did, he would find himself miserably imposed upon. The Author in this Epistle praeacquaints him with these things. 1. That there is nothing touched in this Discourse concerning the Temporal Prince his Supreme power in such matters, as it is dubious whether they be Spiritual or Temporal, but only in things which are purely Spiritual and Ecclesiastical. 2. That he knows not of any Ecclesiastical powers in this Discourse denied to the Prince, but which, or at least the chiefest of which, all other Christian Princes except those of the Reformed states do forego to Exercise. 3. Nor of any, but which the Kings of England have also foregone before Henry the Eighth. Now I shall humbly beg leave to undeceive the unknown Sir, and to represent to him that in all these he is misinformed. As to the first, 1. That there is nothing touched in this Discourse concerning the Temporal Prince his Supreme power in such Matters as it is dubious whether they be Spiritual or Temporal but only such as are purely Spiritual and Ecclesiastical. Now if by dubious he means such things as He does not doubt, but they are Spiritual, than this doth not reach our case; because We may doubt whether some things are not Temporal, which He doubts not but they are Spiritual; But if by dubious He means such things as are doubted by no body but that they are purely Spiritual, then are we agreed; since neither do We allow the Temporal Prince any power in things of which We ourselves doubt not but they are purely Spiritual. That there are some Powers merely Spiritual, appropriated to the Clergy and incommunicable to the Prince, no true Son of the Church of England will deny; but now altho' the substance of those Powers be immediately from God, and not from the King, as those of Preaching, Ordaining, Absolving etc. Yet whether these are not subject to be limited, inhibited, or otherwise regulated in the outward Exercise of them by the Laws of the Land, and the Authority Regal is the thing quaestioned. This cannot perhaps be better expressed then in the words of the Reverend Bp. Sanderson; The King doth not challenge to himself as belonging to him by Virtue of his Supremacy Ecclesiastical the power of Ordaining Ministers, excommunicating scandalous Offenders, or doing any other act of Episcopal Office in his own Person; nor the power of Preaching, Administering the Sacraments, or doing any other act of Ministerial Office in his own person: but leaves the performance of all such acts of either sort unto such persons, as the said several respective powers do of divine right belong to, viz. of the one sort to the Bishops, and of the other to the Priests. Yet doth the King by Virtue of that Supremacy challenge a power as belonging to him in the right of his * Episcopacy not prejud. to Reg power p 22 Crown, to make Laws as well concerning Preaching, Administering the Sacraments, and other acts belonging to the Function of a Priest, as concerning Ordination of Ministers, proceeding in matters of Ecclesiastical Cognisance in the Spiritual Courts, and other acts belonging to the Function of a Bishop: to which Laws as well the Priests, as the Bishops are subject, and aught to submit to be limited and regulated thereby in the Exercise of those their several respective Powers; their claim to a Jus Divinum, and that their said several powers are of God notwithstanding. Now to apply this; That the deciding Controversies of Faith, and Excommunicating Offenders, etc. are the proper Province of the Clergy, we deny not; but that the indicting Synods in order to such Matters, or making Laws to regulate the Exercise of them are purely Spiritual, is not so undoubted as He would persuade us. Again, that the Spiritual Authority which is to be exercised in the Episcopal or Sacerdotal Functions can be derived from none but those spiritual persons who were invested with that Authority, and power of delegating it to others, is willingly allowed; but that collation to Benefices can be the act of none but the Clergy will not be hence inferred. For the Spiritual Authority itself, and the application of it to such an Object are very different things. The power by which a Clergy man is capacitated for his Function is derived from the Bishop which ordains him; but the applying this Power to such a Place, the ordering that the Ecclesiastical Person shall execute that Authority which he derived from the Church in such a peculiar part of the Kingdom is not without the reach of the Civil Jurisdiction; and therefore Collation to Benefices (in the sense this Author understands it) should not have been reckoned by him amongst those things of which it is not doubted but they are purely Spiritual. Another power of which he abridges the Prince, and by consequence would have to be esteemed purely Spiritual, is the deposing from the Exercise of their Office in his Dominions any of the Clergy for transgressing of the Ecclesiastical Canons. Now that the Secular Prince should have an Obligation from God over all Persons in all Spiritual matters to bind them by Temporal Punishments to the Obedience of the Churches or Clergy's determinations, and decrees (as he words it) and yet that the Exercising this power, their performing what they are obliged to by God, should be without the reach of their Authority, seems to me a paradox. That the Christian Emperors in the Primitive times challenged such a power is plain from the undoubted testimony of the Learned Petrus de Marca. * Cura principum Christianorum olim non solum Haereticorum furoros compressi, contumacia Episcoporum aut Clericorum adversus Synodorum sententias rebellium ab externa potentia repressa; sed etiam Principum studio prohibiti Episcopi ne legibus secularibus vel Canonibus violatis injuriam subditis inferrent De concord. l. 4. cap. 1. par. 2. Who tells us, that by the care of Christian Princes, Heretics were repressed, the contumacy of Bishops and Clergymen against the Decrees of Synods punished, and Bishops restrained from oppressing their subjects by the violation of the Canons. If we inquire how the Princes secured the Keeping of the Canons; * Canonum custodiae duobus modis prospiciebant Principes, tum delegatione Magistratuum, qui vetarent ne quid contra Canones tentaretur, tum exactis poenis à contumacibus si quid perperam gestum esset. lb par 4. He tells us they did it by these 2 Methods. 1st. By delegating Magistrates to see they were observed. 2ly. By punishing those who were guilty of the breach of them. And he particularly mentions Deprivation inflicted by the Secular power for violation of the Canons. * In manifestissima violatione, canonibus factam injuriam iis poenis Principes ulsciscebantur, quae legibus irrogatae erant, nempe expulsione à sede. Deturbationem enim illam quae vacantem Ecclesiam redderet sui arbitrii esse putabant; non autem regradationem vel dejectionem ab Episcopali dignitate, quae erat poena mere Ecclesiastica. Ib. par. 6. For that, they thought removal from the See within the reach of their Jurisdiction, tho' not Degradation, which is a punishment merely Ecclesiastical. (Which neither did the Reforming Princes ever think in their power to inflict.) And he * Ibid. there gives instances of Bishops so deprived. And indeed this seems to be a Necessary branch of power, which naturally flows from his being Custos Canonum, which he is proved by this Author at large to be. How far the Prince may abridge himself of this power by the laws of the Land, I meddle not; it suffices to show that it is not originally a power merely Spiritual. And from this and the former Instances the Reader will be able to judge the truth of that assertion, That there is nothing touched in this Discourse concerning such Matters, as it is dubious whether they be Spiritual, or Temporal. Come we now to that other assertion of his, That he knows not of any Ecclesiastical powers in this Discourse denied to the Prince but which (or at least the chiefest of which) all other Christian Princes except those of the Reformed States do forego to exercise. Now if by the chiefest, which he excepts, he means preaching the word, and administering the Sacraments, Excommunicating, and absolving; neither do the Reformed States challenge the Exercise of these; and as for others it will appear that the Princes of the Roman-Catholick Communion extend their Supremacy as far as the Reformed. And here it may not be improper to instance in that right which the Kings of Spain enjoy in Sicily, which seems to extend even to those Spiritual powers which our Author calls the chiefest. And this I find ushered in by a Roman-Catholick Writer with an assertion quite * Hist. of Eccl. Rev by a Learned Priest in France. p. 116. opposite to that which is laid down in this Epistle. It even surpasses (saith he) that which Henry the Eighth of England boldly took when he separated from the Church of Rome. The King of Spain as King of Sicily pretends to be Legate à latere, and born Legate of the H. See; so that he and his Viceroys in his absence have the same power over the Sicilians as to the Spiritual that a Legate à latere could have. And therefore they who execute that Jurisdiction of Sicily for the King of Spain have power to absolve, punish, and excommunicate all sorts of persons, whether Laics or ecclesiastics, Monks, Priests, Abbots, Bishops, and even Cardinals themselves, that reside in the Kingdom. They acknowledge not the Pope's Authority, being Sovereign Monarches as to the Spiritual. They confess that the Pope hath heretofore given them that privilege: (So that his Holiness it seems thought even those chiefest Powers of the Church alienable) but at the same time they pretend that it is not in his power to recall it; and so they acknowledge not the Pope for head, to whose Tribunal no Appeal can be made because their King has no Superior, as to the Spiritual. Moreover this right of superiority is not considered as delegate, but proper; and the King of Sicily or they who hold Jurisdiction in his place, and who are Laymen take the title of Beatissimo & Santissimo Padre attributing to themselves in effect in respect of Sicily what the Pope takes to himself in regard of the whole Church; and they preside in Provincial Councils. As for the title of Head of the Church which taken by the Reformers so much offends our Discourser, this Critical Historian farther observes; It was matter of great astonishment that in our age Queen Elizabeth took the title of Head of the Church of England. But seeing in the Kingdom of Sicily, the Female succeeds as well as in England, a Princess may take the title of Head of the Church of Sicily, and of Beatissimo & Santissimo Padre. Nay it hath happened so already in the time of Jean of Arragon & Castille the mother of Charles the 5th: So that this Critic concludes that it may be said there are two Popes, and two sacred Colleges in the Church, to wit, the Pope of Rome, and the Pope of Sicily, to whom also may be added the Pope of England. What Jurisdiction Spiritual the King of France challenges will best be learned from the Liberties of the Gallican Church, published by the learned Pitthaeus and to be found in his Works. Two of them which seem to come home to our purpose are these. * Le Rois tres Chrestiens ont de tout temps selon les occurrences & necessitez de leur pays, assemblè ou fait assembler Synods ou Conciles Provinciaux & Nationaux, esquels entre autres choses importantes à conservation de leur estate, se sont aussi traitez les affairs concernans l'ordre & discipline Ecclesiastic de leurs pays, dont ils ont faict fair Reigles, chapters, Loix, Ordonnances, & Pragmatiques Sanctions sous leur Nom & autoritè: & s' en lisent encor aujourd hue phisieurs ès recueils des Decrets receus par l'Eglise Universelle, & aucunes approuvees par Conciciles generaux. The most Christian King hath had power at all times according to the occurrences and necessity's of his own affairs, to assemble or cause to be assembled Synods or Councils Provincial and National; and therein to treat not only of such things as tend to the preservation of his State, but also of affairs which concern the Order and Discipline of the Church in his own Dominions; and therein to make Rules, Chapters, Laws, Ordinances, and Pragmatic sanctions in his own Name and by his own Authority. Many of which have been received among the Decrees of the Catholic Church, and some of them approved by General Councils. * Le Pape n'envoy point en France Legates à latere avec faculte ' the reformer, juger, conferer, dispenser, & tells autres qui ont accoustumè d'estre specifiees par les Bulles de leur pouvoir, si non a la ' postulation du Roy tres-Christien ou de son consentement: & le Legat n' use de ses facultez qu' apres avoir baillè promise au Roy par escrit sous son sein, & jurè par ses Saints Ordres de n' user desdites facultez is royalme, pays, terres & Seigneuries the sa sujettion si non tant & si longuement qu'il plaira au Roy; & que si tost que le dit Legat sera adverty de sa volonte ' au contraire, il s' en desistera & cessera Aussi qu' il n' usera des dites facultez si non pour le regard de celles dont il aura le consentement du Roy & conformement à iceluy sans entreprendre ny fair chose au Saints decrets. Conciles generaux, Franchises, Libertez, & Privileges the L'Eglise Gallicane & des Universitez, & estatez publiques de ce royalme, Et à cette fin se presentent les facultez de tells Legates a la Cour de Parliament, ou elles sont veus, examinees, verifiees, publiees & registrees sous tells modifications que la Cour voit estre à fair pour le bien du royalme: suivant lesqnelles modifications se jugent tous les process & differents qui surviennent pour raison de ce, & non autrement. The Pope cannot send a Legate à latere into France, with power to reform, judge, collate, or dispense, or do such other things which use to be specified in the Bull of his Legation, except it be upon the desire or with the approbation of the most Christian King. Neither can the said Legate execute his Office until he hath promised the King in writing under his seal, and sworn by his holy Orders, that he will not use the said Legantine power in his Kingdom, Countries, Lands and Dominions any longer than it shall please the King; and that so soon as he is admonished of the King's pleasure to the contrary he will cease and forbear; and that whilst he doth use it, it shall be no otherwise exercised then according to the consent of and in conformity to the King, without attemping any thing to the prejudice of the Decrees of General Councils, the Franchises, Liberties, and Privileges of the Gallican Church, and the Universities, and public Estates of the Realm. And to this end they shall present the Letters of their Legation to the Court of Parliament, where they shall be viewed, verified, published and registered with such Modifications as that Court shall think fit for the good of the Realm; and all processes shall proceed according to such restrictions, and no otherwise. In these two Liberties, we find the Authority of the French King farther extended, and the Papal power more limited, than our Author can be contented the Regal Jurisdiction should be enlarged, and the Patriarchal confined by the Reformed. What power the most Christian King claims in confirming Canons we may learn from Petrus de Marca * De Conc. l 6. c. 34. par. 2. Nunquam discedere oportet ab hac certissima Regula, deliberationes Ecclesiae Gallicanae considerari non posse aliter quam velut consilium Regi datum, easque executioni non posse mandari absque consensu & confirmatione ejus. who lays it down for a Rule which never fails, That the deliberations of the Gallican Church can be looked upon no otherwise then as Counsel given to the King; and that they cannot be put in execution without his consent and confirmation. And he there saith, that the King may praeside in Councils as * Tanquam caput, comme Chef Ibid. Head. * An ex co quod Suprema Canonum protectio ad Regem pertinet, sequatur eum jubere posse ut observentur, non expectata etiam sententia Ecclesiae Gallicanae? And in another place proposing to himself this Quaestion, * Certum quidem est earum constitutionum obseruationum fore sanctiorem, si conderentur cum generali Cleri consensu; quoniam unusquisque eam rem obtinere modis omnibus cupit quam ipse suo judicio comprobaverit. Nihilominus aeque certum est Regem ex sententia Concilii sui, quod auget aut minuit prout ei lubet, posse latis edictis decernere ut Canones observentur, ac circum stantias & modos necessarios addere ad faciliorem eorum executionem, sive etiam ad veram eorum mentem explicandam, eosque accommodare ad utilitatem Regni lib. 6. c. 36. par. 1. Whether, since the supreme protection of the Canons doth belong to the King, it thence follows that He can command that they be observed without expecting the sentence of the Gallican Church? He answers, * that it is indeed certain that the Observation of them will be the more sacred, if they be made with the Universal consent of the Clergy, because every one desires that that should take place, which he himself approves of: But then, that it is equally certain, that the King with the advice of his Council, may by his Edicts decree, that the Canons be observed, and may add such Modes and Circumstances as are necessary for the better Execution of them, and accommodate them to the Interest of the State. This Authority he confirms from the Examples of the first Christian Emperors, and the former French Kings, and adds expressly * Utuntur adhuc eo jure Reges Christianissimi. Ib par. 3. That the most Christian Kings still use that right. And now methinks the revising of the Canons by the Kings of England, especially when humbly besought to do it by the Clergy, should not be an Invasion of the Church's rights, when the French Kings even without such Interposition of the Church, exercise the same Right, and yet do, according to our Author, leave to the management of the Clergy all power in Spirituals. I might here insist upon Collation of Benefices, which the French Kings challenge by right of the Regale; but I shall choose rather to mention the assembling of Councils, because a French King in the last Century seems to have doubted whether his Clergy might convene without his consent; as appears from that bold Speech of his Ambassador in the Council of Trent, which because it gives us some insight into the freeness of that Synod, I shall beg leave to transcribe the latter part of it from Goldastus * Collect. Constitut. Imperial. T. 3. p. 373 Pii quarti imperium detractamus, quaecunque sint ejus judicia & sententiae rejicimus, respuimus, & contemnimus. Et quanquam, Patres Sanctissimi, vestra omnium Religio, Vita, & eruditio magnae apud Nos semper fuerit & erit Autoritatis, cum tamen nihil à vobis, sed omnia magis Romae, quam Tridenti agantur, & quae hic publicantur magis Pii Quarti placita, quam Concilii Tridentini decreta jure aestimentur, denunciamus▪ & protestamur quaecunque in hoc conventu, hoc est, solo Pii nutu & voluntate decernuntur & publicantur ea neque Regem Christianissimum probaturum, neque Ecclesiam Gallicanam pro decreto Oecumenici Concilii habituram. Interea quotquot estis Galliae Archiepiscopi, Episcopi, Abbates, Doctores, Theologi, Vos omnes hinc abire Rex Christianissimus jubet, redituros ut primum Deus Optimus Maximus Ecclesiae Catholicae in Generalibus Conciliis antiquam formam & libertatem restituerit, Regi autem Christianissimo suam dignitatem & Majestatem. We refuse to be subject to the Command of Pius the 4th, All his judgements and decrees we refuse, reject, and contemn; and although, most Holy Fathers, Your Religion, Life, and Learning was ever and ever shall be of great Authority with Us, Yet seeing You do nothing, but all things are managed rather at Rome, then at Trent; and the things that are here published are rather the Placita of Pius the 4th, than the Decrees of the Council of Trent, We denounce and protest here before You all, that whatsoever things are decreed in this Assembly by the will and pleasure of Pius, neither the Most Christian King will ever approve, nor the French Church ever acknowledge for the Decrees of an Ecumenical Council. In the mean time the Most Christian King commands all you his Arch-Bishops, Bishops, Abbots, Doctors, and Divines to departed hence; then to return, when it shall please God to restore to his Catholic Church the ancient methods and liberty of General Councils, and to the Most Christian King his Honour and Dignity. Now I leave it to the Reader to judge whether any Reformed States ever assumed to themselves greater Authority over the ecclesiastics, than this R. Catholic Prince, or Whether ever any Protestant expressed himself with greater warmth concerning this Council, then that Protesting Ambassador. It might be easy to show how much power the Venetian Republic exercises in Spirituals, had not this been done so lately by another Pen. But what hath been said may suffice to evince, that this Epistolographer imposed upon the credulity of his Sir, when he told him, that he knew of no Ecclesiastical powers denied to the Prince but which (or at least the chiefest of which) all other Christian Princes, except those of the Reformed State, do forego to exercise. But our Discourser perhaps presumed his Friend a Stranger to sorreign affairs, and therefore thought he might the more securely use a Latitude in his treating of those; it remains therefore to examine whether he has been a more faithful Relator of our own History, and what truth there is in his last Epistolary assertion, that he knows not of any Ecclesiastical powers in this Discourse denied to the Prince, but what the Kings of England have foregone before Henry the 8th. Now whatever in relation to a power in Spirituals is in this Discourse accused of Novelty seems easily reducible to these two Heads: 1st. A Supremacy in Causes Ecclesiastical denied to the Western Patriarch: as appears by our Princes taking away all manner of Foreign Jurisdiction, prohibiting all appeals to the See of Rome, all Bulls from it, and in general all Intercourse with it. 2ly. The same Supremacy invested in the Sovereign; as appears by King Henry's assuming the title of Head of the Church; by the Kings making Ecclesiastical Laws; by that Synodical act of the Clergy not to assemble or promulgate any Canons without his leave; by that power granted to the King to visit Ecclesiastical persons, and to reform Errors and Heresies; by his collating to Benefices without consent of the Clergy; and by hindering Excommunications in foro externo. Now in Answer to this charge of Novelty; It is confessed that the Pope did for some Years usurp such a superiority; but then, as it is granted that he did de facto claim such a power, so that it did de jure belong to him is denied; and not only so, but farther we affirm, that he neither from the beginning challenged such a power, nor was he afterwards in so full possession of it, but that our Princes have upon Occasion vindicated their own right against all Papal, or, if he pleaseth, Patriarchal Encroachments. And here waving the dispute of right I shall confine myself to matter of Fact, that being the only case here controverted. Where 1st of the Supremacy of the Western-Patriarch. That when Austin came over to convert the Saxons, no such Supremacy was acknowledged by the British Christians is evident from the celebrated Answer of Dinoth Abbot of Bangor to Austin requiring such subjection. Notum sit Vobis etc. * Spelm. Conc. p. 108. Be it known unto you that we are all subject and obedient to the Church of God, and the Pope of Rome; but so as we are also to every good & pious Christian, viz. to love every one in his degree and place, in perfect Charity, and to help every one by word and deed, to attain to be the Sons of God; and for other Obedience I know none due to him whom you call the Pope, and as little do I know by what right he can challenge to be Father of Fathers. As for us we are under the rule of the Bishop of Caerleon upon uske, who is to overlook and govern us under God. This is farther manifest from the * Spelm A. C. 601. British Clergy twice refusing in full Synod after mature deliberation to own any such subjection. That appeals to Rome were a thing unheard of till Anselms time appears from the application of the Bishops and Barons to him to dissuade him from such an attempt; * Inauditum in regno suo esse & usibus ejus omnino contrarium, quemlibet de Principibus & praecipue Te tale quid praesumere. Eadm. p. 39.30. telling him it was a thing unheard of in this Kingdom, that any of the Peers, and especially one in his station should praesume any such thing. That Legates from Rome were for 1100 Years unheard of in this Kingdom, we may learn from a memorable passage in the same Historian concerning the Archbishop of Vienna reported to have the Legantine power over England granted him A. C. 1100 * Quod per Angliam auditum in admirationem omnibus venit, Inauditum scilicet in Britannia cuncti scientes quemlibet hominum super se vices Apostolicas gerere nisi solum Archiepiscopum Cantuariae. Ead. p. 58. 41. The News of which being come to England was very surprising to all people, every one knowing it was a thing unheard of, that any one should have Apostolical Jurisdiction over them, but the Archbishop of Canterbury. And the event of that Legacy was suitable, * Quapropter sicut venit, ita reversus est, à Nemine pro Legato susceptus, vec in aliquo Legati officio functus. Ibid. for as he came, so he returned, being taken by no one for a Legate, nor in any thing discharging the office of a Legate. That the Church of Canterbury owned no Superior Bishop to her own but Christ, appears from her being called, * Ger. Dorob. Coll. Hist. Angl. 1663. 24. Col. 1615. 60. Omnium nostrum mater communis sub sponsi sui Jesu Christi dispositione; and in another place, Mater omnium Anglicanarum Ecclesiarum, quae suo post Deum proprio laetatur Pastore. That appeals to Rome were prohibited in King Henry the 2ds' time is manifest from the famous Capitula of Clarendon, amongst which this is one Article. If any appeals shall happen they ought to proceed from the archdeacon to the Bishop, and from the Bishop to the Archbishop, and if the Archbishop shall fail in doing Justice, the last Address is to be made to the King. That Doctrines prejudicial to the Pope's power were then publicly maintained, appears from these Propositions amongst others censured by Becket. 1st. That none might appeal to the See Apostolic on any account without the King's leave. 2d. That it might not be lawful for an Archbishop or Bishop to departed the Kingdom and come at the Pope's Summons without the King's leave. 3d. That no Bishop might Excommunicate any who held of the King in capite, nor Interdict his Officers without the King's leave. Which propositions so censured are selected out of the Capitula of Clarendon; to the Observation of which all the Arch-Bishops, Bishops, and other ecclesiastics (even Becket himself amongst the rest, tho' afterwards falling of) had obliged themselves by a solemn Oath, acknowledging them to be the customs of the King's Predecessors; to wit, Henry The 1st his Grandfather, and others, and that they ought to be kept inviolable by all. To what party the Bishops were inclined in these differences betwixt the King and Becket we cannot better learn then from Baronius, whose severe animadversion on these Praelates, (wherein he teaches us what Kings are to expect if they displease his Holiness, and how dreadful his Fulminations be when they come out with full Apostolic vigour) the Reader may peruse in the * Episcopi Angliae suffraganei Sancti Thomae literis ejusdem sui Archiepiscopi Apostolica legatione fungentis exagitati, resilientes, haud (ut par erat) parere mandatis, salubres admonitiones suscipere, Catholicae Ecclesiae utilitati consulere, vendicantes eam à miscrrima servitute studuerunt, sed ex adverso oppositi pro Rege contra ipsum scriptis, verbis, factisque repugnant, ac tantum abest ut (quod eorum muneris erat, ad quod & suis eos literis excitaverat ipse Sanctus) adversus Regem pro Ecclesia starent, redarguerent, & comminarentur; o●●entantes quae in arcu sagittae paratae erant ad feriendum, censuras nimirum Ecclesiasticas ab Ecclesia Romana Apostolico vigore prodeuntes, ut potius adversus eundem pro Ecclesiae libertate pugnantem Sanctissimum Virum bella cierent, telis oppeterent jurgiorum, in scandalum omnium ista audientium Episcoporum Orthodoxorum. Bar. An. A. C. 1167. Margin. A like warm Expostulation upon these proceed we meet with in Stapleton (de tribus Thomis, in Thoma Cant.) * Quid aliud hic Henricus secundus tecte postulavit, quam quod Henricus Octavus completa jam malitia aperte u surpavit, nempe ut supremum Ecclesiae caput in Anglia esset? What did this Henry the 2d tacitly demand, but that which Henry the 8th afterwards openly usurped, viz. to be Supreme Head of the Church of England? and again * Quid hoc est aliud, nisi ut Rex Angliae sit apud suos Pap●? what was this, but that the King of England should be Pope over his own Subjects? So that according to this Author, Henry the 8th was not the first of that name who pretended to be Supreme Head of the Church. It would be too tedious here to recite the several Statutes made in succeeding Reigns against the Pope's Encroachments, viz. the 35 of Edw. 1 25 Edu. 3. Stat, de provisoribus. 27 Ed. 3. c. 1. 38 Ed. 3. c. 1.2. 4. stat. 2. 2 Ric. 2. c. 3. 12 R. 2. c. 15. 13 R. 2. stat. 2. cap. 2. 16 R. 2. c. 5. 2 Hen. 4. cap. 3. 2 Hen. 4. cap. 4. 6 Hen. 4. cap. 1. which speaks of horrible mischiefs and a damnable custom brought in of new in the Court of Rome. 7 Hen. 4. cap. 6.8. 9 Hen. 4. cap. 8. 3 H. 5. c. 4. Which see collected by Rastal under the title of Provision and Praemunire. fol. 325. It may suffice to add the Opinion of our * Coke Inst. l. 4. c. ●4. Lawyers that the Article of the 25 of Hen. 8. c. 19 concerning the prohibition of appeals to Rome is declaratory of the ancient laws of the Realm; * 1. Eliz. c. 1. and accordingly the Laws made by King Henry the 8th for extinguishing all foreign power are said to have been made for the Restoring to the Crown of this Realm the Ancient right and Jurisdictions of the same. Which rights are destructive of the Supremacy of the Pope, as will farther appear by our 2d Inquiry, how far the Regal power extended in Causes Ecclesiastical? Where 1st. As to the title of Head of the Church, we find that * Twisd c. 5. par. 2. King Edgar was reputed, and wrote himself Pastor Pastorum, the Vicar of Christ, and by his Laws and Canons assured the world he did not in vain assume those titles; * Chap. 5. par. 14. c. 6. par. 8. That our Forefathers styled their King's Patrons Defenders, Governors? Tutors, and Protectors of the Church. And the King's Regimen of the Church is thus expressed by King Edward the Confessor in his laws. Rex quia Vicarius summi Regis est, ad hoc est constitutus, ut regnum terrenum, & populum Domini, & super omnia Sanctam veneretur Ecclesiam ejus, & regat, & ab injuriosis defendat. Leg. Edu. Conf. apud Lamb. Where it is plain that he challenges the power of Governing the Church as being the Vicar of God, so that it was but an Artifice in Pope Nicholas the Second to confer on the same King as a privilege delegated by him, what he claimed as a right derived immediately from God * Vobis & posteris vestris Regibus Angliae committimus advocationem ejusdem loci, & omnium totius Angliae Ecclesiarum, & ut vice nostra cum Concilio Episcoporum statuatis ubique quae justa sunt. . To you (saith that Pope to the Confessor) and your Successors, the Kings of England we commit the Advowson of that place, and power in our stead to order things with the advice of your Bishops. Where by the way if we may argue ad hominem this Concession gives the King of England as much right to the Supremacy over this Church, as a like Grant from another Pope to the Earl of Sicily, gives the King of Spain to his Spiritual Monarchy over that Province. But the Kings of England derive their Charter from a higher Power. They challenge from St. Peter himself to be * 1 Pet. II. 13. Supreme, and from St. Paul that * Rom. XIII. 1. every Soul should be subject to them. And the extent of their Regal power may be learned from St. Austin who teaches us * In hoc Reges, sicut eis divinitus praecipitur, Deo serviunt in quantum Reges sunt, si in Regno suo bona jubeant, mala prohibeant, non solum quae pertinent ad humanam societatem, verum etiam quae pertinent ad divinam Religionem. Aug. contra Cresc●n l. 3. c. 51. that the Divine right of Kings, as such, authorised them to make Laws not only in relation to Civil Affairs, but also in matters appertaining to divine Religion. In pursuance of which. 2ly. As to the power of making Ecclesiastical Laws; That the Kings of England have made Laws not only concerning the External Regimen of the Church, but also concerning the proper Functions of the Clergy, namely the Keys of Order and Jurisdiction, so far as to regulate the Use of them and oblige the Persons entrusted with them to perform their respective Offices, is evident to any one, who shall think it worth his leisure to peruse such Laws yet extant. A Collection of the Laws made by Ina, Alfred, Edward, Ethelstan, Edmund, Edgar, Ethelred; Canutus, and others we have, published by Mr. Lambard, in which we meet with Sanctions concerning Faith, Baptism, Sacrament of the Lord's Supper Bishops, Priests, Marriage, Observance of Lent, appointing of Festivals, and the like. And here it may not be unseasonable to urge an Authority which our Editor cannot justly decline; I mean Mr. Spelman jun. in his Book de Vita Alfredi written by him in English but Published in Latin by the Master of University College in Oxford, in the Name of the Alumni of that Society. This Author, speaking of the Laws made by King Alfred in Causes Ecclesiastical, makes this Inference from them. * Hae leges hactenus observationem merentur, quod ex iis constat, etiam illis temporibus, Reges Saxonicos Alfredum & Edvardum sensisse se Suprematum habere tam in Ecclesiasticos, quam in Laicos, neque Ecclesiam, quae in ipsorum ditione esset, esse quid peregrinum, vel Principi alicui extraneo subditam, domi autem Civitatis legibus solutam, quod Anselmus,. Beckettus, aliique deinceps insecuti acriter eontenderunt. Vita Alfr. lib. 2. par. 12. These Laws do therefore deserve our particular Observation, because from them it is evident that the Saxon Kings Alfred and Edward were of Opinion that they had a Supremacy as well over Ecclesiastical persons as Laymen; and that the Church which was within their Dominions was not out of their Jurisdiction, or subject to a foreign Power and exempted from the Laws of the Country, as Becket, Anselm, and others afterwards fiercely contended. And again; * Ex ipsius (Alfredi) legibus constat vel Suprematum ilium Romanum istis quidem temporibus nondum eo modo, quo posterioribus saeculis, sese extulisse, scilicet ut Christiani Principes angustius regnarent; vel si eatenus pertigerit, non tamen eo usque se ei adjeci sse Alfred. lb. From his (King Alfred's) laws it is evident either that the Roman Supremacy was not yet risen to that height as in after Ages, so as to lessen the Jurisdiction of Christian Princes, or if it was, yet that King Alfred did not so far subject himself to it. Nay so far was King Alfred from paying any such Subjection that we are told * Rex viam ingressus est, qua universali isti Imperio, quod crassis temporibus recens extruxerant (Pontificii) & absolvere deproperarant, ruinam & excidium, minaretur. l. 3. par. 98. He found out away to ruin and destroy that Universal Empire which the Romanists in those dark Ages had newly founded and were hastening to finish. Which is spoken in reference to his restoring the second Commandment expunged out of the Decalogue, of which thus that Author; * Neque hoc sane penitus omittendum, videtur, quod inter Decalogum recitandum secundum quidem Praeceptum de sculptilibus non faciendis ex usu secundi Concilii Niceni ante centum annos celebrati suo loco plane praetermissum est Veruntamen ut ex ipso Sanctorum Bibliorum contextu quod deest suppleretur, post decimum quod dicimus mandatum aliud insuperad justum Numerum absolvendum, adjicitur. Non tibi facies Deos aureos. Quod, cum ab ipso Rege subjungutur, Ecclesiam jam turn corrupti dogmatis arguit, rectae autem confessionis Regi testimonium perhibet. l. 2. par. 5. And here it may not be passed over, that in reciting the Decalogue, the second Commandment concerning the not making of graven Images was according to the use of the 2d Nicene Council, which was celebrated. am 100 Years before, in its place omitted. But that this defect might be supplied out of the context of the Holy Bible, after that which we call the Tenth Commandment, another was added to complete the just Number, in these words, Thou shalt not make to thyself any Gods of Gold; Which being added by the King himself as it doth argue the Church to have been corrupt in her Doctrine, so it is a testimony of the King's Orthodoxy. From which one Instance it is plain that, contrary to the pretensions of our Author, King Edward the 6th was not the 1st that took upon him to Reform Liturgies; for King Alfred here restores the Decalogue to its primitive Integrity: to judge what is agreeable to the word of God; for He supplies the defect, which he finds in the Missal, from the Scriptures: to judge contrary to the Determinations of the Church; for the Church is here said to have been corrupt in that Doctrine in which the King was Orthodox; to alter the Constitutions of General Councils because repugnant to the law of God; for this Omission of the Commandment was ex usu secundi Concilii Niceni, and the Worshipping of Images here forbidden was introduced by that Council which the Romanists acknowledge General. These passages cited I take to be some of the perperam scripta which the Publisher of that life mentions in the * Errores (Authoris) retinuimus, & perperam scripta medicari potius, quam tollere maluimus. preface. And accordingly we find that whatsoever is advanced against the Papal Authority in the Text is qualified in the Comment, and it is plain that King Alfred was a greater Adversary to the power of the Pope then his Alumnus the Annotator; so that it is matter of surprise to find him appear in the Frontispiece of this Treatise of Church Government, who was so great an Enemy to the Antiregal designs of it. 3ly. As to the power of calling Synods, we need no more to clear this point then the very words of the Statute by him urged: 25 Hen. 8. c. 19 Where it is said, that the King's Humble and Obedient Subjects the Clergy of the Realm of England had acknowledged according, to the truth that the Convocation of the same Clergy is, always hath been, and aught to be assembled only by the King's Writ: Which is farther evident from the ancient form of calling and dissolving Synods by a Writ in each case directed to the Archbishop of Canterbury, as may be seen in Dr. Heylin * Ref. Justif. p. 1. c. 2. . The Clergy did indeed before this act of King Henry 8th promulge and execute those Canons by their own authority, which they here promise not to put in Execution without the King's consent But since no such Canons could be put in ure till made; nor be made but by the Clergy assembled; nor the Clergy be assembled but only by the King's Writ; this executing of Canons did in effect as much before this Statute as after depend upon the King's pleasure. 4ly. As for visiting Ecclesiastical Persons, and reforming Errors and Heresies by proper Delegates, this is a necessary consequence from the Supremacy they challenged. Without such a Power how shall the Confessor regere Ecclesiam, & ab injuriosis defendere? If such a Power as this be inconsistent with the Principles even of Roman-Catholiques, Whence is it that we find Articles sent from Queen Mary to Bp. Bonner to be put in Execution by him and his Officers within his Diocese? Whence is it that we find a Commission directed to some Bishops to deprive the Reformed Bishops? But to speak of former times, if our Kings had not such a Power, Whence is it that in King Henry the fourth's Reign upon the Increase of Lollardy We find the Clergy thus petitioning that Prince in the Names of the Clergy and Praelates of the Kingdom of England, * Quatenus inclytissimorum progenitorum & antecessorum vestrorum laudabilia vestigia gratiose considerantes dignetur vestra Regia celsitudo pro conservatione dictae Ecclesiae Anglicanae ad Dei laudem etc. super novitatibus & excessibus praedictis in praesenti Parliamento providered de remedio opportuno. Tw. c. 5. par. 19 That according to the Example of his Royal Predecessors He would find out some remedy for the Heresies and Innovations then praevailing? Whence is it that we find a Commission from that King as Defender of the Catholic Faith to empower certain Persons to seize upon Haeretical Books, and bring them before his Council, and such as after Proclamation be found to hold such Opinions, to be called and examined before two Gommissioners, who were of the Clergy. * Ibid. 5thly. As for Collation of Benefices. Our learned Lawyers assure us that all the Bishoprics are of the King's Foundation, and that they were Originally Donative, not Elective; and that the full right of Investitures was in the Sovereign who signified his pleasure therein per traditionem baculi & annuli by the delivery of a Ring and Crosier Staff to the Person by him elected and Nominated for that Office. * Coke Instit. l. 3. S. 648. Accordingly we find in the Statute of Provisors Ed. 3. A. 28." the King called Advower Parantount of all Benefices which be of the Advowrie of people of Holy Church. And it is there said, That Elections were first granted by the King's Progenitors upon a certain form and Eondition, as to demand Licence of the King to choose, and after Election to have his Royal Assent, and not in other manner. That if such Conditions were not kept, the thing ought in reason to resort to its first Nature. Lastly as for Hindering Excommunications in fore externo, It is one of the Articles of Clarendom; That None that hold of the King in capite nor any of his Household Servants may be Excommunicated, nor their Land interdicted, unless our Lord the King, if he be in the Kingdom, be first treated with, or his Justice, if he be abroad; so that he may do what is Right concerning him. And amongst the Articuli Cleri. c. 7. It is complained that the King's Letters used to be directed to Ordinaries that have wrapped their Subjects in Sentence of Excommunication that they should assoil them by a certain day, or else that they do appear and answer, wherefore they excommunicated them. This short account, however imperfect, may suffice to show that the Regal power in Spirituals challenged by King Henry the 8th was not quitted by his Predecessors. And if the Reader desires a more full account of these things I shall refer him to Dr. Hammond's Dispatcher Dispatched c. 2. Sect. 5. Bishop Bramhal's just Vindication c. 4. Repl. to the Bishop of Chalcedon c. 4. Sch. guarded c. 12. Sect. 3. as also to Sr. Roger Twisden in his Historical vindication of the C. of England in point of Schism; Which Learned Author has by a through insight into History, Law-books, Registers, and other Monuments of Antiquity enabled himself to give full and ample satisfaction to every unpraejudiced Reader concerning this Subject; and to convince him that this Author knew very little either of the English History or of his own Book, if He knew not of any Ecclesiastical powers in this Discourse denied to the Prince, but which were foregone by the Kings of England before Henry the Eighth. As for what he adds, that no more Supremacy in such Ecclesiastical matters, Ep. as are delegated by Christ to the Clergy and are unalienable by them to any Secular power, can belong to the Princes of one time or of one Nation, then do to any other Prince of a former Time, or a divers Nation, We willingly acknowledge it, since no such powers belong to any Prince, at any time; or of any Nation. But then there is a Supremacy in Ecclesiastical matters delegated by God to the Prince, which may be invaded by a Foreigner under a forged pretence of his being Head of the Church; and here Secular Laws may be made for the protection of such Rights, and for the punishment of those who shall either invade them, or vindicate such Invasion. And that person who under pretext of maintaining the Church's rights shall impugn the just Authority of his Sovereign may be more a disloyal Subject in these days, when this Authority is by the Laws vindicated from Foreign Usurpation, than he would have been in those days, when such Usurpation was tolerated, and connived at. Having dwelled hitherto on the Epistle, and discovered so much Insincerity in that, which yet was to bespeak the Reader's good Opinion of the ensuing Discourse, We have no great reason to expect any fairer dealing in the prosecution of his design. And here I shall be excused if I be the shorter in the Examination of his Theses, both because they are such as being proposed only and not proved, it lies in our power to accept, or reject them at pleasure; as also because they have already undergone the Censure of a Noble Pen, and have not been able to abide a fair Trial. Some of them are so ambiguously expressed that they may be either true or false according to the different construction they are capable of. The falsehood of others is self-evident; But then for the better vending of these, some truths are intermixed according to the policy of Luther's Antagonist observed by his Biographer * Consid. concerning Luther § 48. p. 90. , Who, to make his bad wares saleable, diligently mixeth some small stock of good with evil, so to make this more current, and all easily swallowed down together by the imprudent and credulous. Another Artifice much practised by our Author is that he lays down his Propositions in general terms, but afterwards restrains them by such limitations, which if adhered to would make them utterly disserviceable to his Cause; but then when they come to be applied, the Theses are referred to at large without any regard to such limitations. Thus when in his first Thesis he has proposed That it is not in the just power of the Prince to deny giving the Ministers of Christ licence to exercise their Office, §. 3. p 4. and their Ecclesiastical Censures in his Dominions. He means he saith in general, for he meddles not with the Prince, his denying some of them to do these things whilst he admits others. Now if this Restraint be observed, than all which he would establish from this Thesis will come to Nothing. For he will not, I believe, presume to say that the Reforming Princes ever laid a general Interdict upon all the Clergy to prohibit them the exercise of their Ecclesiastical Functions. This is an Act which the Reformation detests, and which we leave to the charitableness of the Universal Pastor, who by Virtue of our Saviour's Command of Pasce oves; challenges to himself a power of depriving the flock of all Spiritual food. Thus again, When in his third Thesis he has asserted that the Secular Prince cannot eject from the exercise of their Office in his Dominions any of the Clergy, §. 5. p. 12. nor consequently the Patriarch from any Authority which he stands possessed of by Ecclesiastical Canons, He restrains such Canons to those only that cannot justly be pretended to do any wrong to the Civil Government. Now he knows that all Canons which would obtrude upon us a foreign usurped Authority are by us pretended (whether justly or not, they will best judge who impartially weigh our Reasons) injurious to the Civil Government. Another Limitation of this Thesis is that the Civil power may judge, and eject, §. 8. p. 16. and disauthorize Spiritual Persons for Moral and Civil Misdemeanours damageable to the Commonwealth; But this Limitation is forgot when from this Thesis He would prove the ejection of the Bishops, in Queen Elizabeth's time unlawful; For their Deprivation was for refusing the Oath of Supremacy made first by roman-catholics in King Henry the 8th's time, and revived by Queen Elizabeth; so that the Justice of it depends merely on the Right of the Civil power to make Oaths for the better security of their Government, and to impose such Penalties as are expressed in the Law on the Violators; and if such Refusal be damageable to the Commonwealth (as it was then judged) then the Deprivation of those Refusers will be justifiable according to his own Principles. Thus again in his 8th Thesis When he has laid down, That as for things of mere Ecclesiastical Constitution, §. 14. p. 18. Neither National Synod, nor Secular power may make any New Canons contrary to the Ecclesiastical Constitutions of former Superior Councils, nor reverse those formerly made by them. He restrains it to those only as neither the Prince can show some way prejudicial to his Civil Government, nor the National Synod can show more prejudicial to their particular Church, than the same Constitutions are to the rest of Christian Churches. (Where by the way methinks it should suffice if they were equally prejudicial, for one Church is never the less wronged because another suffers.) Now we desire no more than the benefit of this limitation; for if the Prince may reverse such Constitutions when prejudicial to Civil Government, and the National Synod when praejudicial to their particular Church, and each of These are Judges of such praejudice, (for neither doth Equity admit, nor doth He appoint any other Arbiter) than each of these have as much power granted them as they challenge, which is only to alter such Constitutions as are prejudicial to them. Having praemis'd thus much in general, and cautioned the Reader against this piece of Sophistry, which runs through the greatest part of this Discourse, I shall now proceed to a particular survey of his Theses. As for the first and second, I shall at present grant him that favour which he seems to request of all his Readers, i.e. suppose them to be true, and shall content myself only to examine what Inferences he deduces from them. And here I cannot but commend his Policy for setting his Conclusions at so great a distance from his Praemisses, for they are commonly such as would have by no means agreed to stand too nigh together. From his first and second Thesis, that the Clergy have power to determine Controversies in pure matters of Religion, and to judge what is divine truth, what are Errors; & that they cannot alienate this Power to the Secular Prince; §. 22. p. 29. he infers That that Synodical Act of the Clergy in K. Henry the Eighth's time, whereby they promise not to Assemble without the King's Writ, nor when Assembled to execute any Canons without the King's consent, is unlawful. Now it is to be observed that the Clergy neither do deny that they have a Power to determine Controversies in pure matters of Religion, which is what the first Thesis would prove; nor do they transfer such a Power on the King, which might be against the Tenor of the second. The utmost which can be deduced hence is, That the Clergy did for prudential motives limit themselves in the Exercise of one branch of their Spiritual Power; and it will be difficult for this Author to prove that He, who has a power jure divino, may not by humane Laws be limited in the Use of it. Husband's have a power over their Wives, Fathers over their Children, and Masters over their Servants by the Law of God, and yet this power may be regulated by the Laws of the Land. §. 27. p. 36. Thus the Priest has a power to bind and lose from our Saviour's Commission, and yet according to this Author, before the Reformation the Inferior Clergy might not exercise any Church Censure contrary to the Commands of their lawful Spiritual Superior. Thus also if a General Council have power to determine matters of Faith, then according to his Principles they have power to convene in order to such Determination, and this power of theirs is unalienable; and yet the Romanists will not allow that such Conventions may be made at pleasure, but that the hic & nunc are determinable by the Pope, who only has power to indict Councils, and to give Authority to those decrees, which yet derive their power from the Council's being infallible, and from the Holy Ghost assisting them. Another Act, which from the same Thesis he accuses of Injustice, is the Clergies beseeching the King's Highness that the Constitutions and Canons Provincial and Synodal, §. 25. p. 31. which be thought prejudicial to the King's Prerogative Royal, or repugnant to the Laws and Statutes of this Realm, or to be otherwise overmuch onerous to his Highness and his Subjects may be committed to the judgement of his Highness, and of 32 Persons, 16 of the Temporally, and 16 of the Clergy of this Realm to be chosen and appointed by the King's Majesty, and that such Canons, as shall be thought by the more part of them worthy to be annulled, shall be made of no value, and such other of the Canons as shall be approved to stand with the Law of God etc. shall stand in power. Now it is to be considered that the Laws, which the Clergy here desire may be revised, are of a far different Nature, and therefore the Inspection of them may well be committed to different Judges. Some of them were supposed prejudicial to the King's Prerogative Royal, or repugnant to the Laws of the Realm, and here the Lay-Commissioners, being persons of the upper and lower House of Parliament (see the Stat.) were, the best Judges; Of others it was to be enquired Whether they were agreeable to the word of God or not, and here the Clergy were ready to give their Determination. And altho' they both acted in a joint Commission yet no good reason seems assignable why both Lay and Ecclesiastical Judges should be appointed, but that, the matters to be examined being of different cognizance, those which related to Civil Affairs should be determined by the Temporalty, those which were of a Spiritual Nature by the Spiritualty. And if so, than the deciding of these matters is not transferred from the Spiritualty to the Temporalty, but from one part of the Clergy to another. And this He himself, after all his descants upon this Act, confesseth, For, whatever sense the words in the preface of this Act were or may be extended to, §. 26.10. I do not think the Clergy at first intended any such thing, as to make the King or his Commissioners Judges of matters of Faith or Divine truth: and for this Opinion of his He gives us his Reasons in that, and the subsequent pages. Another Act, which is by this Author judged contrary to his first Thesis, is that Statute of King Henry the eighth which orders that no speaking, holding, or doing against any Laws called Spiritual Laws made by Authority of the See of Rome, which be repugnant to the Laws and Statutes of the Realm, § 34. p. 39 or the King's Prerogative shall be deemed to be Heresy, from which he infers that the King and Parliament undertake to be Judges of Heresy. Now the King and Parliament do not here in my Opinion take upon them to decide matters of Faith, but only to Enact that in such a case the Subject shall not suffer the Punishment usually inflicted on Heretics; Whether such speaking or doing be Heresy or not, they have power to ordain that it shall not be deemed so i e. the Speaker shall not suffer as an Haeretick. Something parallel to this we have in that Statute of much concernment (to use our Author's expression of another Act) made 23. Eliz. c. 1. Wherein it is enacted that The Persons who shall withdraw any of the Queen's Majesty's Subjects from the Religion established by Law to the Romish Religtion, shall be to all intents adjudged as Traitors, and shall suffer as in cases of High Treason, and the like of Persons willingly reconciled. Where without disputing whether every such Reconciler, or Reconciled, is necessarily for that Act ipso facto a Traitor, all that is here enacted is that he shall suffer as such; For it is undoubtedly within the reach of the Civil Power to ordain where they will inflict or not inflict their Secular Punishments, without being accountable for this to any Authority under God's. And it seems very hard that if a Subject expresses himself, or acts against such Laws of a Foreigner as are repugnant to the Laws of his own Country, there the Prince cannot exempt him from a Writ de Haeretico comburendo without invading the Churches right. Another Act condemned by Virtue of his 1st and 2d Theses is The Convocation's granting to certain persons to be appointed by the King's Authority to make Ecclesiastical laws, §. 43. p. 56. and pursuant to this, 42 Articles of Religion published by the Authority of King Edward in the 6th Year of his Reign. Now not to engage myself in a dispute Whether these Articles were not really what in the Title prefixed they are said to be? Articuli de quibus in Synodo London, A. D. 1552. ad tollendam opinionum dissentionem, & consensum verae Religionis firmandum inter Episcopos & alios eruditos Viros convenerat, Regia autoritate in lucem editi, I shall only accept of what is by him granted that de illis convenerat inter Episcopos & alios eruditos Viros qui erant pars aliqua de Synodo London. §. 166. p. 187. So that here is only a part of the Synod employed in drawing up these Articles, and not any Jurisdiction Spiritual transferred from Ecclesiastical persons to Secular, which was by him to have been proved. Another Inference, which he deduces from these Theses, is the Unlawfulness of the Oath of Supremacy. §. 185. p. 214. Now how far the Regal Supremacy is by us extended, will best be learned from our Articles. * Art. 37. The King's Majesty has the chief power in this Realm of England, and other his Dominions: Unto whom the chief Government of all Estates of this Realm, whether they be Ecclesiastical or Civil, in all causes doth appertain, and is not or ought not to be subject to any foreign Jurisdiction. So far for the extent of this power; but now for the restraint. Where we attribute to the King's Majesty the chief Government, by which Titles we understand the minds of some slanderous folks to be offended, We give not to our Prince the ministering either of God's word, or of the Sacraments, the which thing the Injunctions also, lately set forth by Q. Elizabeth do most plainly testify, but that only Prerogative which We see to have been given always to all Godly Princes in Holy Scriptures by God himself, that is, that they should rule all Estates and degrees committed to their charge by God, whether they be Ecclesiastical or Temporal, and restrain with the Civil Sword the Stubborn & evil doers. It is therefore by our Author to be proved that they who give no more to their Prince, then hath been given always to all Godly Princes in Holy Scripture by God himself, do alienate to the Secular Governor any Authority or Office which they (the Clergy) have received and been charged with by Christ, with a command to execute the same to the end of the World; which being a Contradiction I leave it to him to reconcile. That by this Oath, or any other Act of Queen Elizabeth a greater Power was either assumed by herself, or given to her by Others, then is consistent with that Authority that is given by our Saviour to the Church will be very difficult for any Reasonable man to conceive who shall have recourse to the Injunction of this Queen to which this very Article refers us; * Sparrow's Collection pag. 83. Lond. 1684. Where she declares that she neither doth nor ever will challenge any Authority, but what was challenged and lately used by the Noble Kings of famous memory King Henry the 8th, and King Edward the 6th, which is and was of Ancient time due to the Imperial Crown of this Realm; that is, under God to have Sovereignty and Rule over all manner of Persons born within these her Realms, Dominions, and Countries, of what Estate either Ecclesiastical or Temporal soever they be; so as no other foreign Power shall or aught to have any Superiority over them. And if any Person that hath conceited any other sense of the form of the said Oath, shall accept the same Oath with this Interpretation, sense, or meaning; Her Majesty is well pleased to accept every such in that behalf as her good and Obedient Subjects; and shall acquit them of all manner of penalties contained in the act therein mentioned, against such as shall peremptorily and obstinately refuse to take the same Oath. So that it's evident from this Injunction that it's no way here stated what Authority belongs to the Church, and what to the Civil Magistrate, farther than that the Queen (as justly she might) challenged what was due of Ancient time to the Imperial Crown of this Realm, and neither did nor would challenge more; but what that was, is not here determined; and she is content without such Determination, if any Person would take this Oath in such a sense as only to exclude all foreign Jurisdiction whether Ecclesiastical or Civil. Another Act which He finds repugnant to his his 1st. pag. 36. Thesis' is King Henry the Eth's claiming a right that no Clergyman, being a Member of the Church of England, should exercise the power of the Keys in his Dominions in any Cause or on any Person without his leave and appointment. But it is to be remembered that the Ecclesiastical Censures asserted to belong to the Clergy in the first Thesis have reference to the things only of the next world; but the censures here spoken of, are such as have reference to the things of this world. The Habitual Jurisdiction of Bishops flows, we confess, from their Ordination; but the Actual exercise thereof in public Courts after a coercive manner is from the gracious Concessions of Sovereign Princes. From the 1st and 2d Thesis he farther condemns the taking away the Patriarch's Authority for receiving of Appeals, pag. 99 and exercising final Judicature in Spiritual Controversies, as also the taking away the final judging and decision of such Controversies not only from the Patriarch in particular, but also from all the Clergy in general, not making the Archbishop of Canterbury or Convocation, but himself or his Substitutes the Judges thereof. For which he refers us to Stat. 25. H. 8.19. c. But in that Statute I find no mention of a Patriarch, or Spiritual Controversies, but only that in causes of Contention having their commencement within the Courts of this Realm no Appeal shall be made out of it to the Bishop of Rome, but to the Archbishop of Canterbury, and for want of Justice in his Courts to the King in Chancery; Upon which a Commission shall be directed to such Persons as shall be appointed by the King definitively to determine such Appeals. Here is nothing of determining Controversies in pure matters of Religion, of deciding what is God's word, and divine Truth, What are Errors in the faith or in the practice of God's Worship, and Service, nor any of the other Spiritual powers by him enumerated in the 1st Thesis; Or if any such Quaestions should be involved in the Causes to be tried, Why may not the Commissioners, if Secular, judge according to what has been praedetermined by the Clergy? or let us suppose a case never yet determined, How doth he prove a power of judging in such causes transferred on secular Persons, since if Occasion required, the Delegates might be Persons Ecclesiastical? But not only the Acts of State and Church, but the Opinions of our Doctors are to be examined by his Test, and therefore from the same Theses he censures that Assertion of Dr. Heylin * Heylins' Ref. Justified, part. 1. §. 6. p 240. , that it is neither fit nor reasonable that the Clergy should be able by their Synodical Acts to conclude both Prince and People in Spiritual matters, until the stamp of Royal Authority be imprinted on them. Now it is plain to any one that views the Context, that the Dr. speaks of such a concluding the Prince and people in matters Spiritual, as hath influence on their Civil rights. For he there discourses of the Clergy under King Henry obliging themselves not to execute those Ecclesiastical Canons without the King's consent which formerly they had put in Execution by their own Authority. But the Canons so executed had the force of Civil Laws, and the Violators of them were obnoxious to Secular punishments. The Dr. therefore very justly thought it unreasonable any should be liable to such Punishments without His consent, who only has the power of inflicting them; Nor is this inconsistent with our Authors first Thesis (had he at so great a distance remembered it) which extends Church-Autority only to Ecclesiastical Censures, which have reference to things not of this, but the next World. These are the Inferences which I find deduced, from his first and second Theses in the several parts of this Discourse, which had they been as conclusive, as they are false, yet I do not find but that his own party (if that be the Roman Catholic) had suffered most by them. For if the Supremacy given to King Henry was so great an Invasion of the Churches right, what shall we think of that Roman Catholic Clergy, who so Sacrilegiously invested him with this Spiritual power? If that Synodical Act was betraying the trust which the Clergy had received from Christ, what shall we think of those Pastors, who so unfaithfully managed the Depositum of their Saviour? If denying the Pope's Authority was so piacular a Crime, what Opinion shall we entertain of those Religious Persons in Monasteries, who professing a more than ordinary Sanctity, and being obliged by the strictest Vows of Obedience so * Burn Ref. l. 3. p. 182. resolutely abjured it? What of those Learned in the * Convocatis undique dictae Academiae Theologis, habitoque complurium biorum spatio ac deliberandi tempore sasatis amplo, quo interim cum omni qua potuimus diligentia, Justitiae zelo, religione & conscientia incorrupta perscruta remur tam Sacrae Scripturae libros quam super iisdem approbatissimos Interpretes, & eos quidem saepe & saepius à nobis evolutos, & exactissime collatos, repetitos, & examinatos, deinde & disputationibus solennibus palam ac publice habitis & celebratis tandem in hanc Sententiam unanimiter omnes convenimus ac concordes fuimus viz. Romanum Episcopum majorem aliquam Jurisdictionem non habere sibi à Deo collatam in sacra Scriptura in hoc Regno Angliae quam alium quemvis Episcopum. Antiq. Oxon lib. 1. pag. 259. University, who after a solemn debate, and serious disquisition of the cause, so peremptorily defined against it? What of the * Ref. l. 2. p. 142. Whole Body of the Clergy, whose proper Office it is to determine such Controversies, Pag. 2. and to judge what is God's Word, and divine Truth, §. 2 what are Errors, who in full Synod so Unanimously rejected it? What of the leading part of those Prelates, Ibid. p. 137. Gardiner, Bonner, and Tonstal, who Wrote, Preached, and Framed Oaths against it? What of the Ibid. p. 144. Nobles and Commons, Persons of presumed Integrity, and Honour, who prepared the Bill against it? What lastly of the Sovereign a declared Enemy of the Lutheran Doctrine, and Defender of the Roman Catholic Faith, who past that Bill into a Law, and guarded the Sanction of it with Capital punishments? If all these acted sincerely, than it is not the Doctrine of the Reformed, but of the Romanists which is written against: If not, we seem to have just praejudices against a Religion which had no greater influence over its Professors, then to suffer a whole Nation of them perfidiously to deny that, which if it be any part, is a main Article of their Faith? But to return to our Author, What shall we judge of his skill in Controversy who from Principles assumed gratis, draws Deductions which by no means follow, and which if they did follow, would be the greatest Wound to that cause which he pretends to Patronise? But because he has offered something under this first Thesis, why the Prince should pay an implicit Obedience to his Clergy, I come now to consider it. He tells us therefore that the Prince professeth Himself with the rest of the Christians as to the knowing of Spiritual Truths a Subject and Scholar of the Church; and he earnestly claims a Supreme power and confesseth an Obligation from God over all Persons in all Spiritual Matters to bind them upon Temporal Punishments to Obedience of the Churches (or Clergies) Determinations and Decrees. But here he either willingly misrepresents, or ignorantly mistakes our Principles; For the Prince claims a supreme power over all persons, to bind them by temporal Punishments to the Obedience not of the Churches, but of Christ's Laws; or of the former, no farther than they are agreeable with the latter. But, saith He, if the Prince meaneth here only where himself first judgeth such their Decrees Orthodox and right, this power is in effect claimed to bind all persons in all Spiritual matters only to his own Decrees; whilst he praetends an Obligation both of himself and His Subjects to the Churches. But, what if the Prince judge such Decrees neither Orthodox nor right? Must he here give them the Authority of Civil Sanctions? This is to establish Iniquity by a Law; and a power is claimed in effect to bind all persons to the Decrees of the Clergy, whilst, as has been said, He praetends an Obligation of Himself & Subjects to the Laws of Christ. But he goes on and tells us, That all Texts of the New-Testament do ordain Obedience of Churchmen to the Pagan Princes, that then Reigned, no less then to others. From which I suppose he would infer an exemption from Obeying the Prince in Spiritualibus. But supposing that all Texts do equally ordain Obedience to Princes Pagan, and Christian, yet the Obedience to a Christian Prince will be of greater latitude, since because he professes the true Religion, his Commands in Spirituals not contradicting our Saviour's will exact our Compliance. Obedience in licitis is all the Subject ows to a Prince either Christian on Infidel; but the Christian Prince will oftener challenge my Obedience, because he more rarely transgresseth the bounds of licita. If as he adds, all Princes are obliged with the Sword which God hath given them to protect and defend his true Religion, and Service in their Dominions, whensoever it offers itself to them; Since many Religions offer themselves, it becomes the Prince to take Care which is the true; and not to take, whatever is offered; which would be utterly destructive of our Author's Principles. As for the Acts of Ancient Councils obliging even without the Emperor's consent, We own their Obligation over their proper Subjects, so far as they were agreeable with the Laws of Christ, and his Apostles; and urge the Authority of Emperors no farther than as adding their Civil power to the Spiritual Power of the Church. And here we challenge no other Power to our Princes, than was exercised by Christian Emperors, that is, to call Synods, and to have a liberty of confirming, or not confirming their Decrees by Civil Sanctions. As for what he citys out of our Writers, all amounts to no more than this, that there are some Offices peculiar to the Church; Which neither do we deny, nor did our Princes ever invade these Functions. But because from hence He would insinuate that the Prince has no power at all in Causes Ecclesiastical, &c in his Citations from these Writers comes up to that Character which the * Book of Educ Ox. 1677 p 86. Book of Education gives us of the SLY, the CLOSE, and the RESERVED, who take notice of so much at serves to their own designs, and misinterpret and detort what You say even contrary to Your intention; I shall as briefly as may be show that their Concessions are far from giving any Countenance to his Cause. Bishop Andrews doth indeed say (as all other of our Church) Potestatis mere Sacerdotalis sunt Liturgiae, Conciones. i e. dubia legis explicandi munus; claves, Sacramenta, & omnia quae potestatem ordinis consequuntur; But then there are other Ecclesiastical powers which he challenges to the Prince; viz. a In iis, quae Exterioris politiae sunt, ut praecipiat, suo sibi jure vindicat, Tort. p. 380. To have Supreme Command in the exterior Polity of the Church; b Custos est non modo secunadae Tabulae, sed & primae. p. 381. To be keeper of both Tables; c Quodcunque in rebus Religionis Reges Israel fecerunt, id ut Ei faciendi jus sit ac potestas. Ib. To exercise all that Power which the good Kings of Israel did; d Leges Autoritate Regia ferendi, ne blasphemetur Deus, ut jejunio placetur Deus; ut festo honoretur. Ib. To make Ecclesiastical Laws; To e Delegandi qui de lege sic lata judicent Ib. delegate Persons to judge in causes Ecclesiastical; To f Siqui in Leges ita latas committant, etsi, Religionis causa sit, in eos Autoritate Regia animadvertendi Ib. punish the breach of those Spiritual Laws; To g Non ut totus ab lieno ore pendeat, ipse à se nihil dijudicer. Ib. learn the will of God not only from the Mouth of the Clergy, but also from the Scripture; To h Omnibus omnium ordinum jus dicendi. Ib. have authority over all Persons; To i Abiathar ipsum, si ita meruit, Pontificatu abdicandi. 382. eject even the High Priest if he deserve it; To k Excelsa diruendi. i e. peregrinum cultum abolendi. Ib. pull down High-places l Sive in Idololatriam abeat Vitulus aureus; sive in Superstitionem Serpens aeneus, utrumque comminuendi. Ib. ; and to Reform the Church from Idolatry and Superstition. These He claims to appertain to the Prince m Haec Primatus a pud nos jura sunt, ex jure divino. Ib. Jure Divino. The next Author is Dr. Carlion. He amongst other rights of the Church reckons Institution and Collation of Benefices, which this Writer marks with Italian Characters, and makes much Use of. But this Apostolical Institution and Collation by the Bishop alluded to, doth also involve in it Ordination, even as the Ordination (which is observed by himself n Pag. 13. from the Bishop) signified also Institution in the charge and cure. But the Collation challenged by our Princes is of another Nature, and signifies no more than the Nominating a Person to be Ordained to such an Office, or presenting a Person already Ordained to such a Benefice; And the right of Investitures (which is the same with such a Collation) is by this Bishop o Jurisd. ●eg. Ep. p. 137. asserted to Emperors. This being cleared which was by him on purpose perplexed, If we take the extent of the Regal power from this Bishop, He tells p Id. p. 10. us, That Sovereign's as Nursing Fathers of the Church are to see that Bishops and all Inferior Ministers perform their faithful duties in their several places, and if they be found faulty to punish them. His next Author is Mr. Thorndike, Who is as large as any one in the Vindication of the Church's rights; and Yet He tells us q Epilog. Pag. 391. , that No-Man will refuse Christian Princes the Interest of protecting the Church against all such Acts as may prove praejudicial to the common Faith. He holds (as this Writer with great concern r Church Government, pag. 390. observes) that the Secular power may restore any law, which Christ or his Apostles have ordained, not only against a Major part, but all the Clergy and Governors of the Church; and may, for a Paenalty of their opposing it, suppress their power and commit it to others, tho' they also be established by another Law Apostolical. Thus that considerative man, who held not the Pope to be Antichrist, or the Hierarchy of the Church to be followers of Antichrist s Church Government, pag. 391. Bishop Taylour (his next Author) doth with the rest assert, that the Episcopal Office has some powers annexed to it, independent on the Regal; But than he farther lays down these Rules, t Ductor Dub. l. 3. c. 3. r. 4. That the Supreme Civil-power is also Supreme Governor over all Persons, and in all Causes; u Ibid. r. 5. Hath a Legislative power in Affairs of Religion and the Church; x Ibid. r. 7. Hath Jurisdiction in causes not only Ecclesiastical, but also Internal and Spiritual; y Ibid. r. 7. n. 9 Hath authority to convene and dissolve all Synods Ecclesiastical; z Ibid. r. 8. Is (indeed) to govern in Causes Ecclesiastical by the means and measure of Christ's Institutions, i. e. by the Assistance and Ministry of Ecclesiastical Persons; a Ibid. r. 8. n. 6. but that there may happen a case in which Princes may and must refuse to confirm the Synodical decrees, Sentences, and Judgements of Ecclesiastics; b Ibid. l. 3. c. 4. r. 8. That Censures Ecclesiastical are to be inflicted by the consent and concurrence of the Supreme Civil power. The next Author cited is the Learned Primate Bramhal; and We have here reason to wonder that one Who praetends to have been conversant in his Writings, dares appear in the Vindication of a Cause, which the Learned Author has so long since so shamefully defeated. As for the right of Sovereign Princes, This Archbishop will tell c Bp. Br. Works Tom. 1. p. 88 him, That to affirm that Sovereign Princes cannot make Ecclesiastical Constitutions under a Civil pain, or that they cannot (especially with the advice and concurrence of their Clergy assembled in a National Synod) reform errors and abuses, and remedy Encroachments, and Usurpations in Faith or Discipline, is contrary to the sense and practise of all Antiquity, and as for matter of Fact He will instruct him, d Ibid. p. 76. that our Kings from time to time called Councils, made Ecclesiastical Laws, punished Ecclesiastical Persons, saw that they did their duties in their calling etc. From this Bishop's acknowledgement, that the Bishops are the proper Judges of the Canon, this Author that He may according to the Language of a * Educ. p. 98. modern Pen, as well waken the Taciturn with Quaestions, as silence the Loquacious with baffling fallacies, takes Occasion briskly to ask whether this Bishop doth not mean here that the Bishops may both compose and execute Canons in the King's Dominions, and use Ecclesiastical Censures by their own Authority? But see, saith He, the Bishops deprived of the former power in the Reformation. To which I answer that the power of which they were deprived in the Reformation was only of such an executing the Canons as carried with it pecuniary and corporal Punishments, and this power the Bishop has told him they could not Exercise by their own Authority. And here it were to be wished that our Author in reading this Bishop's Works had made use of his advice, e Ibid. p. 156. To cite Authors fully and faithfully, not by halves, without adding to, or new moulding their Autorities according to Fancy or Interest. The next Advocate against Regal Supremacy is King Charles the First; But if we may take a draught of that Blessed Martyr's Sentiments from his own Portraiture, f E I K. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Adu. To the Pr. of Wales. He did not think his Authority confined to Civil Affairs, but that the true glory of Princes consists as well in advancing God's Glory in the maintenance of true Religion, and the Churches good; as in the Dispensation of Civil power with Justice, and Honour, to the public Peace. g Ibid. cap. 17. He thought himself (as King) entrusted by God and the Laws, with the good both of Church and State, and saw no reason why he should give up, or weaken by any change, that power and Influence which in right and reason He ought to have over both. He thought himself obliged to preserve the Episcopal Government in its right Constitution, (not because his Bishops told him so, but) because his Judgement was fully satisfied that it had of all other the best Scripture grounds, and also the constant practice of Christian Churches. He was no Friend of implicit Obedience, but after he has told the Prince, h Adu. to the Pr. of Wales. that the best Profession of Religion is that of the Church of England, adds I would have your own Judgement and reason now seal to that Sacred Bond which Education hath written, that it may be judiciously your own Religion, and not other men's Custom, or Tradition, which you profess. He did not give that glorious Testimony to the Religion established in the Church of England, that it was the best in the World, not only in the community as Christian, but also in the special Notion as Reform; and for this reason reqwired and entreated the Prince as his Father, and his King, that he would never suffer his Heart to receive the least check against, or disaffection from it; till he had first tried it, and after much search, and many disputes thus concluded. These are the Sentiments of our Authors, in which if I have been overlong, the Reader will excuse me, that I choose rather to intermix something useful from these great Pens, then to entertain him altogether with the Paralogisms and prevarications of this Writer. There is nothing that remains considerable under this first Thesis, but his Sub-sumption, that whatever powers belonged to the Church in times of persecution, and before Emperors had embraced Christianity, are, and must still be allowed to belong to her in Christian States. Which I conceive not altogether so Necessary that it must be allowed, and I am sure by our Authors it is not. As for Convening of Councils (the power of greatest concern) Bishop i Serm. of the right of Assemblies. Andrews to this Quaestion (What say you to the 300 Years before Constantine? How went Assemblies then? Who called them all that while?) returns this Answer. Truly as the people of the Jews did before in Egypt under the tyranny of Pharaoh: They were then a Church under persecution, until Moses was raised up by God a Lawful Magistrate over them. The cases are alike for all the world. No Magistrate did assemble them in Egypt, and good reason why; they had none to do it. But this was no bar, but when Moses arose, authorised by God, & had the Trumpets by God delivered to him, He might take them, keep them, use them, for that end, for which God gave them, to assemble the Congregation— Shall Moses have no more to do then Pharaoh? or Constantine then Nero? See also a Field of the Church. l. 5. c. 52. Dr Field. His Third Thesis is, That the Secular Prince cannot b Soave Hist. of Conc. Tr. Pag. 77. depose or eject from the exercise of their Office in his Dominions any of the Clergy, nor introduce others into the place of the ejected. But the Quaestion here is not, Whether the Prince can eject any of the Clergy from the Exercise of their Office, but, Whether he can depose any for not Exercising it? While the Clergy faithfully discharge their Office, the Prince ought to protect them; and if for this they suffer, no doubt but they are Martyrs. But it is possible they may abuse their power, and then it is to be enquired, Whether Civil Laws may not inhibit them the Use of it? This Author holds the Negative, and tells us 1st. They cannot eject them at pleasure, without giving any cause thereof. But he doth not pretend that the Reforming Princes ever ejected any without a Cause given. And therefore he adds 2ly, Neither may Princes depose them for any Cause which concerns things Spiritual; but with this Limitation, without the consent of the Clergy. I could wish he had here told us what he meant by things Spiritual. For things, as well as Persons Spiritual are of great Extent. (d Pope Paul the 3d told the Duke of Mantua, that it is the Opinion of the Doctors, that Priest's Concubines are of Ecclsiastical Jurisdiction.) But he gives us his reason for his assertion; Because it is necessary that a Judge to be a competent one have as well potestatem in causam, as in Personam, and the Prince as has been mentioned in the 1st Thesis has no Authority to judge such Causes purely Spiritual. Now the power denied to the Prince in the 1st Thesis is to determine matters of Faith. But may not the Prince judge whether an Ecclesiastic deserves Deprivation without determining a Matter of Faith? May not he judge according to what has been already determined by the Church? Or may not he appoint such Delegates as can determine matters of Faith? Or are all the Causes, for which a Clergyman may be deprived, merely Spiritual? By Virtue of this Thesis he proves the Ejection of the Western Patriarch unlawful. pag. 37. Now was not this Matter of Faith already determine by the Clergy? Had they not unanimously decreed, That he had no more Authority here, than any other foreign Bishop? And can the King be said here to have acted without the consent of the Clergy? And yet that matter of fact is applied to this Thesis. As for the Ejection of the Bishops in King Edward's time; is not that confessed to have been for not acknowledging the Regal Supremacy? pag. 70. But this was a matter which wanted no new Determination, for the Church-Autority had decided it in their Synod in King Henry's Reign. But it is said, the Judges were not Canonical, as being the King's Commissioners, part Clergy, part Laity. But neither was the cause purely Canonical; for denying the Supremacy was not only an infringement of the Canon, but also a Violation of an Act of Parliament. As for the Bishops, Bonner and Gardiner, they were accused for not asserting the Civil power of the King in his Nonage. Nor do they plead Conscience for not doing it, but deny the Matter of Fact * Burn. His. Ref. part. 2. l. 1. p. 127. 165. The same Objections were then made against their Deprivation, as are reassumed by this Author now; and therefore it may suffice to return the same answers. That the Sentence being only of Deprivation from their Sees, it was not so entirely of Ecclesiastical Censure, but was of a mixed nature, so that Laymen might join in it; & since they had taken Commissions from the King for their Bishoprics, by which they held them only during the King's pleasure, they could not complain of their Deprivation, which was done by the King's Authority. Others who looked farther back, remembered that Constantine the Emp. had appointed Secular Men to inquire into some things objected to Bishops, who were called Cognitores, or Triers; and such had examined the business of Coecilian Bishop of Carthage, even upon an Appeal, after it had been tried by several Synods; and given Judgement against Donatus, and his party. The same Constantine had also by his Authority put Eustathius out of Antioch, Athanasius out of Alexandria, and Paul out of Constantinople; and though the Orthodox Bishops complained of their particulars, as done unjustly at the false suggestion of the Arrians, yet they did not deny the Authority of the Emperors in such cases. Ibid. p. 127. But neither is the Archbishop of Canterbury by this Author allowed to be a proper Judge; & that, because He did not Act by his Canonical Superiority in the Church, but by the Authority he jointly with the rest received from the King; As if he had ever the less the power of a Metropolitan, because He was also the King's Commissioner. By this way of arguing the Decrees of Ecumenical Councils will be invalid, because they were called to determine Controversies by the command of Emperors. But how Uncanonical soever King Edward's Bishops are said to have been, He does not except against Queen Mary's Bishops, tho' they in depriving the Reformed, acted by Commission from the Queen. As for the Bishops ejected in Q. Elizabeth's time, it has been already said it was for a Civil cause, i. e. refusing the Oath of Supremacy; which why it should be lawful in her Father's time, and unlawful in here's; why it should be contrived by Roman Catholics in that Reign, and scrupled by the same Roman Catholics in this; Why it should be inoffensive, when expressed in larger terms, and scandalous, when mitigated; whence on a sudden the Refusers espied so much Obliquity in that Oath, which they had all took before probably either as Bishops or Priests in the reigns of King Henry the 8th, and Edward the 6th; whence this change of things proceeded, unless from secret intimations from Rome, or their own Obstinacy, will not easily be conjectured. As for his Note, that what is said of the other Clergy, may be said likewise of the Patriarch, for any Authority which he stands possessed of by such Ecclesiastical Canons, as cannot justly be pretended to do any wrong to the Civil Government. He has been often told by our Authors, that Patriarches are an Humane Institution; That as they were erected, so they may be dissolved by the Prudence of Men; that as they were erected by leave and confirmation of Princes, so they may be dissolved by the same; that the Bishop of Rome's Patriarchate doth not extend beyond the sub-urbicary Churches; that we are without the reach of his Jurisdiction, and therefore that the power claimed over us is an Invasion; that did not Popes think fit to dispense with themselves for Perjury, having sworn to keep inviolably the Decrees of the Eight first General Councils, they would not in plain opposition to the a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Can. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Can. 7. Here the Council decrees that Ancient Customs should prevail; that the Privileges of all Churches in their distinct Provinces should be kept inviolable. We desire the Bishop of Rome's Patriarchate over the Britannic Churches should be proved to be an Ancient Custom; and if not that the Privileges of these Churches may be preserved. Nicene and b The Fathers of the Ephesine Council having decreed that the Cyprian Prelates should hold their rights untouched and unviolated, according to the Canons of the Holy Fathers, and the Ancient Customs, Ordaining their own Bishop, and that the Bishop of Antioch who then pretended Jurisdiction over them, (as the Bishop of Rome now doth overs us) should be excluded, add farther. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. Conc. Eph. Can. 8. Let the same be observed in other Dioceses, and all Provinces every where, That no Bishop occupy and other Province, which formerly and from the beginning was not under the power of him or his Predecessors. If any do occupy any Province, or subject it by force, let him restore it▪ Now we plead the Cyprian Privileges, and desire we may be exempted from the Jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome till it is proved that He or His Predecessors did from the Beginning exercise any power in these Churches. Ephesine Canons pretend to any Jurisdiction over us; That they so invading aught to be judged by a free Ecumenical Synod if such an one could be had; but that this Remedy being praecluded us, Each National Church has liberty to free herself from such Usurpation; that the Church of England pleads the benefit of this Right; and her Sovereigns having power to transfer Bishoprics, might remove the Patriarchate from Rome to Canterbury, and justly exclude any foreign Prelate from Jurisdiction within their Territories; But that the power claimed by the Pope (however mollified by the Novices of that Church) is more than Patriarchal, and that it is not our Rule (which this Author so much dislikes) but Pope Leo's the c Ep. 54. 1st, that propria perdit, qui indebita concupiscit. This plea of a Western Patriarchate is fatally confounded by that one plain Period of Bishop d True Dif. part. 2. Bilson. As for his Patriarchate, by God's law he hath none; in this Realm for Six Hundred years after Christ he had none; for the last 6 Hundred years looking after greater matters he would have none; Above or against the Prince's Sword he can have none; to the subversion of the Faith, and Oppression of his Brethren he ought to have none; He must seek farther for Subjection to his Tribunal; this land oweth him none. So much for the first branch of this Thesis; the 2d is, that as the Prince cannot eject, or depose the Clergy, so neither can he introduce any into the place of those, who are ejected, or deceased without the concurrence of the Clergy. If by the concurrence of the Clergy, he means that the Person assigned by the Prince to any sacred office cannot execute it till he be ordained by the Clergy, No one will deny it; Or if he think that the Ordainer ought to lay hands on none but whom he esteems fit for the discharge of so sacred an Office; here also we agree with him; But how doth it follow that because Ordination, which is consecrating Men to the work of the Holy Ministry, is the proper Office of the Clergy, the Prince may not recommend to the Church a fit Person so to be consecrated, or assign to the Person already consecrated, the place where he shall perform that Holy Work? As for the Canons by him alleged, they being Humane Institutions are not of Aeternal Obligation, but changeable according to the different State of the Church. If the 31st Apostolic Canon, which excommunicates all who gain Benefices by the Interest of Secular Princes, and forbids the People to communicate with them, still oblige; then we are exempted from Communion with the Bishop of Rome. How comes the latter part of the 6th Canon of the Nicene Council which concerns the Election of Bishops still to be valid, and the former part, which limits the Jurisdiction of Patriarches, so long since to be null? Why must the C. of England accept the 2d. Nicene Council in matters of Discipline, which the * Petr. De Marc. l. 6. c. 25. §. 8. Gallican Church rejected in matters of Faith? Were the Canon of the Laodicean Council, here cited, pertinent to the purpose, as it is not, (it being directed only against popular Elections) yet why must that be indispensable, when another Canon, which enumerates the Canonical books of Scripture, has so little Authority? It is plain the manners of Elections have varied much in the divers States of the Church. The Apostles and Apostolical Persons nominated their Successors; afterwards Bishops were chose by the Clergy, and the people; after, by the Bishops of the Province, the Metropolitan ratifying the choice; In process of time Emperors, when become Christian, interposed and constituted and confirmed even Popes themselves * Marca. de Conc. Imp. & Sac cap. 8. . Nor is this Power of Princes repugnant to Holy Scripture, in which we find that * 1 King. c. 2. v. 35. King Solomon put Zadok the Priest, in the Room of Abiathar; That * 2 Chr. 19.11. Jehosaphat set Amariah the Chief-Priest over the People in all matters of the Lord: That He * v. 8. set of the Levites, and of the Priests, and of the Chief Fathers of Israel, for the Judgement of the Lord, and for Controversies. As for his alleged Inconvenience, that, if temporal Governors can place, and displace the Clergy, they will make the Church's Synods to state divine matters according to their own minds, and so the Church will not be praeserved incorrupt in her Doctrine and Discipline, They who maintain the just rights of the Prince are not obliged to defend the abuse of them; there is perhaps no power ordained for our good, which may not be perverted to mischief; were this right of placing and displacing left to a Patriarch or a Synod, yet either of these might so manage their trust that a corrupted majority of Clergy might state divine matters according to their own mind, and so the Doctrines of Christ be changed for the Traditions of men. But to these objected Injuries which the Church may suffer from a bad Prince, we ought to oppose the benefit she receives from the Protection of a good one; Nor is it more true that Constantius an Arrian, by his unjustly displacing the Orthodox Bishops, procued Arrianism to be voted in several Eastern Synods, then that the succeeding Emperors by justly displacing the Arrian Bishops procured the Nicene Faith to be received in succeeding Synods. But for these mischief, which a National Synod is liable to, our Author has found out, as he thinks, a Remedy in his Fourth Thesis, That a Provincial, or National Synod may not lawfully make any definitions in matters of Faith, or in reforming some Error, or Heresy, or other abuse in God's Service contrary to the Decrees of former Superior Synods, or contrary to the judgement of the Church Universal of the present Age showed in her public Liturgies. But there is a Thesis in our Bibles, which seems to me the very contradictory of this. For saith the Prophet expressly, * Hos. 4.15. Though Israel transgress, yet let not Judah Sin. Tho' ten tribes continue corrupted in their Faith, yet let the remaining Tribe take care to reform herself. For that Judah had sinned, and consequently was here commanded to reform is plain from the words of Scripture, where it is said, that * 2 King. c. 17. v. 9 Judah kept not the Commandments of the Lord her God, but walked in the Statutes of Israel which they made. But this argument of National Councils reforming without the leave of General has been managed with so great Learning and Demonstration by Archbishop Laud in his Discourse with Fisher, and his Lordship's Arguments so clearly vindicated by the Reverend D. Stillingfleet, that as it is great Presumption in this Author to offer any thing in a cause which has had the Honour to have suffered under those Pens, so neither would it be modest in me to meddle any farther in a Controversy by them exhausted. I shall therefore proceed to his Fifth Thesis, That could a National Synod make such Definitions, yet that a Synod wanting part of the National Clergy unjustly deposed, or restrained; and consisting partly of persons unjustly introduced, partly of those who have been first threatened with Fines, Imprisonment, and deprivation, in case of their Nonconformity to the Prince's Injunctions in matters purely Spiritual, is not to be accounted a lawful National Synod, nor the Acts thereof free and valid; especially as to their establishing such Regal Injunctions. Now how this is pertinent to our case I can by no means conjecture. For it has been showed that neither were the Anti-reforming Bps. unjustly deposed, nor the Reformers unjustly introduced. But what he means by the Clergies being threatened with fines, imprisonment, and Deprivation in case of their Nonconformity to the Prince's Injunctions may be learned from another passage in his Discourse, where he tells us that the Clergy being condemned in the King's Bench in a Praemunire for acknowledging the Cardinal's power Legantine, and so become liable at the King's pleasure to the Imprisonment of their Persons, and Confiscation of their Estates, pag 26. did to release themselves of this Praemunire, give the King the title of Ecclesiae & Cleri Anglicani Protector, & Supremum caput. Which Act, saith he, so passed by them, that, as Dr. Hammond acknowledges, It is easy to believe that Nothing but the apprehensions of dangers, which hung over them by a Praemunire incurred by them could probably have inclined them to it. But here we have great reason to complain of the unpardonable prevarication of this Author in so foully misrepraesenting Dr. Hammond. Which that it may be the more perspicuous, and that the Reader may make from this Instance a true judgement of this Writer's sincerity, it will be necessary to transcribe the whole passage as it lies in the Doctor. Sch. c 7. §. 5. Though the first act of the Clergy in this was so introduced, that it is easy to believe that nothing but the apprehension of dangers which hung over them (by a Praemunire incurred by them) could probably have inclined them to it, and therefore I shall not pretend that it was perfectly an Act of their first will and choice, but that which the Necessity of affairs recommended to them, Yet the matter of right being upon that occasion taken into their most serious debate in a Synodical way, and at last a fit and commodious expression uniformly pitched upon by joint consent of both Houses of Convocation, there is no reason to doubt, but that they did believe what they did profess, their fear being the Occasion of their Debates, but the Reasons and Arguments observed in debate, the causes, as in all Charity we are to judge, of their Decision. Thus the Doctor. Now this Prevarication is the more culpable, because it is not an Original, but copied from Mr. Sergeant, whom this Writer cannot but be praesumed to have known to have falsified it. For Bishop Bramhal (in whose writings we find him very conversant) had detected this mis-quotation in Mr. Sergeant, and severely Reprimands him for it. His words are so applicable to our Author, that I cannot excuse myself the Omission of them. Bp. Br. Wor. Tom. 1. p. 360. He citeth half a passage out of Dr. Hammond, but he doth Dr. Hammond notorious wrong. Dr. Hammond speaketh only of the first Preparatory Act which occasioned them to take the matter of right into a serious debate in a Synodical way; he applieth it to the subsequent Act of renunciation after debate. Dr. Hammond speaketh of no fear but the fear of the Law, the Law of Praemunire, an Ancient Law made many ages before Henry the 8th was born, the Palladium of England to preserve it from the Usurpations of the Court of Rome; but Mr. Sergeant mis-applieth it wholly to the fear of the King's violent cruelty. Lastly, he smothers Dr. Hammond's sense expressed clearly by himself, that there is no reason to doubt, but that they did believe what they did profess, the fear being the Occasion of their debates, but the reasons or Arguments offered in debate, the causes (as in all charity we are to judge) of their Decision. He useth not to cite any thing ingenuously. This Author must be thought to have read these passages, and yet ventured the scandal of promoting this Forgery, tho' without the Honour of being the first Inventor of it. Such practices, as these, require little controversial skill, but much forehead; and we have seen a Machine lately publicly exposed for this laudable Quality of imbibing whatever is blown into its Mouth, and then echoing it forth again without blushing. Whether this be not our Author's Talon, let the Reader judge; as also what Opinion we ought to have of his Modesty, who after all this has the confidence to desire us to read, together with these his Observations on the Reformation, Dr. Hammond of Sch. c. 7. (the very Chapter whence this is cited) lest, saith he, I may have related some things partially, or omitted some things considerable in this Matter. As for this Objection of the Clergies being awed by fear in this Act, he himself has unluckily cited a passage from the (then) Lady Mary, which shows the vanity of it. p. 142. I am well assured (saith She speaking of Edward VI in her Letter to the Council) that the King his Father's Laws were consented to without compulsion by the whole Realm both Spiritual and Temporal. I shall say nothing more to this Thesis but oppose another to it, That could an Ecumenical Synod make definitions contrary to the word of God, yet that a Synod wanting the greatest part of Christian Bishops, unjustly excluded, and consisting partly of Persons unjustly introduced, partly of those who have been first bribed with Money, and promises of Church-praeferment, or praeengaged by Oaths to comply with the Usurpations of a pretended Spiritual Monarch, is not to be accounted a lawful Ecumenical Synod, nor the Acts thereof free and valid, especially as to their establishing such usurpations. This is a Thesis, which needs no Application. I proceed to his Sixth Thesis. That the Judgement and consent of some Clergymen of a Province, when they are the lesser part, cannot be called the judgement and consent of the Whole Clergy of the Province. This Assertion, that a lesser part is not equal to the Whole, is the only thing which looks like Mathematics in the whole Discourse; and the Reader may hence be convinced that our Author doth sometimes travel in the * Educ. p. 119. High road of Demonstration. But here we desire it may be proved, either that the Reformation was not effected by the major part of the Clergy, or that a minor part judging according to truth are not to be obeyed rather than the Major part judging contrary to it. In the mean time it is easily replied, that the judgement and consent of some few Bishops ( * Soave Hist, Conc. Tr. p. 153. suppose 48. Bishops, and 5. Cardinal's giving Canonical Authority to books Apocryphal, and making Authentical a translation differing from the Original) cannot be esteemed the judgement and consent of the Catholic Church. 7th. Thesis'. That since a National Synod may not define matters of Faith contrary to former Superior Councils, much less may any Secular Person define contrary to those Councils, or also to a National Synod. The defining matters of Faith we allow to be the proper office of the Clergy; but because every one must give an account of his own Faith, every one is obliged to take care that what he submits to the belief of, be consistent with his Christianity: I am obliged to pay all submission to the Church-Autority, but the Church having bounds, within which she ought to be restrained in her Determinations, if she transgresses these Limits, and acts against that Christianity, which she professes to maintain, I may rather refuse obedience, then forfeit my Christianity. If in a cause of this moment I make a wrong Judgement, I am answerable for it at God's Tribunal, not because I usurped a right, which was never granted me, but because I misused a Liberty which was indulged me. This we take to be the case of each private Christian; and farther, that the Prince having an Obligation not only to believe a-right, and Worship God (as is praescribed) himself, but also to protect the true Faith and Worship in his Dominions, aught to use all those means of discovering the Truth, which God has afforded, viz. consulting the Pastors of the Church, reading the word of God etc. And that, having discovered it, He may promulgate it to His Subjects by them also to be embraced, but not without the use of that Judgement and Discretion which to them also is allowed. If here it happens that the Civil and Ecclesiastical power command things contrary, there is nothing to be done by the Subject but to inquire on which side God is; and if God be on the King's side by a direct Law in the matter, He is not on the Church's side for her Spiritual Authority. Thus a good King of Israel might * 2 King. 38.22. take away the High places and Altars, and say unto Judah and Jerusalem, Ye shall Worship before the Altar at Jerusalem, because such a Command was justifiable by the Law of Moses; Nor is it any Praejudice against it, * 2 King. 23.9. That the Priests of the High places refused to come up to the Altar at Jerusalem. Thus might King Alfred restore to the Decalogue, and to its Obligation the Non tibi facies Deos aureos, tho' Veneration of Images was commanded by the second Nicene Synod. And tho' the Councils of Constance and Trent had thought fit to repeal Our Saviour's Institution, yet King Edward might revive the Ancient Statute, * Mat. 26.27. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. As for his Eighth Thesis it has already been proved to be Felo de se, and that the limitation destroys whatever the Proposition would have established. When the Gallican Church shall have received all the Decrees of the Council of Trent, and the Roman Church observed the Canons of the first General Councils, When the Western Patriach shall have rechanged his Regalia Petri into the old regulas Patrum; it may then be seasonable to examine, How far National Churches are obliged by things of mere Ecclesiastical Constitution. I should now proceed to examine the Historical part of his Discourse; but that I understand is already under the Consideration of another Hand, from which the Reader may shortly expect a satisfactory account. But I may not omit for the Reader's diversion a Grammatical Criticism which our Author hath made upon the little particle as. pag. 38. It is enacted the 32d. Hen. 8.26. c. That all such Determinations, Decrees, Definitions and Ordinances, as according to God's word, and Christ's Gospel shall at any time be set forth by the Arch-Bishops, Bishops, and Doctors in Divinity appointed by his Majesty, or else by the whole Clergy of England, in and upon the matters of Christ's Religion etc. shall be by all his Grace's Subjects fully Believed, Obeyed, etc. Upon which he makes this learned Note. Whereas under the Reformation private Men are tied only to obey and believe the Definitions of Councils when they are set forth according to God's word. i e. when private Men think them to be so, yet here this Liberty was thought fit to be restrained, and private men tied to believe these Definitions when set forth as according to God's word. i e. when the setters forth believe them to be so. To obey a thing defined according to God's word, and to obey a thing defined, as being according to God's word, are Injunctions very different. Now a little skill in Honest Walker's particles would have cleared this point, and a Schoolboy that was to turn this passage into Latin, would have known that as is put for which; Accordingly Keble abridging this Statute makes it run thus, All Decrees and Ordinances which according to God's word, etc. But this it is for people to meddle in Controversy at an Age when they have forgot their Grammar. Notwithstanding therefore this Aristarchus, We still retain the Liberty of believing and obeying only such things, which be defined according to God's Word. For which we are much blamed in the Conclusion of this Discourse. * p. 260. In rejection of the Church's Judgement (saith he) let none think himself secure in relying on the Testimony of his Conscience or judgement. But what reason soever he may have to undervalue the Testimony of a good Conscience, we think it advisable from St. Paul, * 1 Tim. c. 1. v. 19 to hold faith, and a good conscience which some having put away, concerning faith have made Shipwreck; Of whom are— But saith he, let none think himself secure in any of these things, so long as his Conscience witnesseth still to him this one thing, namely his Disobedience and Inconformity to the Church-Catholic. But our Consciences do not witness to us any disobedience to the Church-Catholic, but only to that Church which falsely praetends to be Catholic. He means to the Major part of the Guides thereof. But the cause has not yet been decided by Poll, that we should know which side has the Majority. Let him know that his Condition is very dangerous, when he maketh the Church-Guides of his own time, or the major part thereof, incommunicable-with in their external profession of Religion; There was a time then, when to believe the Consubstantiality of the Son was a dangerous Condition; and this perhaps made Pope Liberius externally to profess Arrianism. When for the maintaining of his Opinions he gins to distinguish and divide between the doctrine of the Scripture, and the Doctrine of the Church. But why not distinguish, where the Church herself distinguishes, and saith, Christ indeed in the Scriptures instituted so, but I institute otherwise; as in the case of denying the Cup. Between the Doctrines of the Catholic Church of the former ages, and of the Catholic Church of the present. But here again the Church herself distinguishes, when She tells us that * Conc. Const. Sess. 13. licet in primitiva Ecclesia sub utraque specie Sacramentum reciperetur, Yet now the contrary Custom habenda est pro lege quam non licet reprobare. Between the Church's orthodoxness in Necessaries, and non-necessaries to Salvation. If there be no difference betwixt these, why doth a * Guide in Controu. Disc. 1 c. 6. par. 56. Friend of the Author tell us of an Obedience of Assent in the one, but of Non-contradition only in the other? When he gins to maintain the Authority of an Inferior Ecclesiastical Judge against a Superior. But what if this be only where the Inferior Judge agrees though not with his immediate Superior, yet with the Supreme? Or of a minor part of the Church-Guides against a Major. But that is not a case yet fairly decided. When they grant that God hath given them, beside the Scriptures, guides of their Faith. But those Guides themselves to be guided by the Scripture. And that they have in their judgement departed from those Guides. i e. the major part of them. But this we would have proved. Which in a Court consisting of mapy is the legal Judge. Guides and Judges are different things; but we hope when this Court sits, the Judges will consult the Scripture, the Statute they are to go by, and if they judge according to that, they will judge well. These are the Doctrines of blind-Obedience which this Author so studiously inculcates. For since Doctrines are taught us different from Scripture, we are advised to use another way of discerning Doctrines, than what the Gospel prescribes. Our Saviour bids us, Mat. 16.6.12. Beware of the leaven. i e. the doctrine of Pharisee's, tho' sitting in Moses his Chair. We are now advised to embrace all the doctrines of those that sit in the Chair of S. Peter. Christ bids us, * Mat. 24.4. Take heed that no man deceive us tho' coming in his Name. We are now told that they who come to us in the Name of Christ cannot deceive us. St. Paul saith, * Gal. 1.8. that If an Angel from Heaven preach to us any other Doctrine then that which he preached, Let him be accursed. Now, if we do not embrace whatever a Patriarch from the West preaches, tho' never so contrary to the Gospel, we are concluded under an Anathema. The Apostles tell us, that they * 2 Cor. 1.24. have no Dominion over our Faith; but their Successors exercise a Despotic power in requiring a servile Obedience to all their Dictates. S. Paul's practice was to * Gal. 2.11.14. withstand Peter to the face, When he saw that he walked not uprightly according to the truth of the Gospel; but St. Peter's Successor pleads that in no case he may be withstood, because it is impossible, but that he should walk uprightly in the truth of the Gospel. The inspired Divine bids us * Rev. 18.4. Come out of Babylon, that we may not partake of her Sins; Our modern Theologists advise us to come back into * Babylonia apud Joannem Romanae urbis figura est. Tertul. adv. Marc. l. 3. c. 13. Roma quasi secunda Babylonia est. Aug. de Civit. Dei. l. 18. c. 2. Babylon, for that She only is impeccable. Imprimatur. GILB. IRONSIDE. Vicecan. Oxon. Octob. 19 1687. REFLECTIONS ON THE HISTORICAL PART OF Church-Government, PART V. He, that is first in his own cause, seemeth just; but his Neighbour cometh and searcheth him. Prov. 18.17. Sheldonian Theatre, Oxford OXFORD, Printed at the THEATER. Anno 1687. The Introduction. THE Pamphlet proposes to relate the English Reformation, and to examine the lawfulness of it. Now from an Examiner we might justly expect Argument, and from a Relator, Truth. How he argues I find considered by the Animadverter: Two small defects he has been charged with. 1st. That he proceeds upon dubious or false Premises; 2ly, That were they granted, his Conclusions would not follow. It is my business to examine his Narrative, which yet is not so purely Historical, but that it is perplexed with dispute. For it is peculiar to this Author that when he should reason, he barely affirms, as if he was writing an History; but when it is his business to relate, being conscious that the stream of Authority is against him, he is forced to dispute it out as if he was proving a Problem. But his arguing is such, as the Cause would bear; and his History such, as it necessarily requires. The former has gained him no great credit with the Men of Reason; and this, I doubt, will little recommend him to the Honest and Ingenuous. But I forbear to prejudge the cause, and desire nothing may be farther charged on him, than it is proved. I pretend to no Critical skill in the History of the Reformation, and I am beholden to the Author that I need it not. His prevarications lie so open, that a Novice in History may detect them. Should I give a complete Catalogue of 'em, I should outswell the bulk of Church-Government; but I consider that every one, who desires to know this Author, may not be willing to be charged with a Volume. I shall therefore confine myself to such only, as are worthy of this Writer, and beyond the aim of a common Undertaker. A Reply to Chapter the 2d. IT Might enquired, why this Author dates the Reformation from the days of King Henry, since the Principal Actors in those times were such, as the Smithfield-Protestants had no reason to think Reformers. I might therefore wave the three a Chapters 2d. 3d. 7th. Chapters, that concern that Reign, were I not by the justness of an Answer obliged to my Author's method. But before I enter upon this subject, I would acquaint the Reader once for all, that the glory of these Fables is owing to the Pen of the inimitable Sanders: Who was so great a Master of Invention, that no Ingenuous Author would have condescended to transcribe him. He does not however pay such an implicit deference to the established Character of that great Original, but that he dares refine upon those Strokes, which seemed incapable of improvement. That he may give us a taste of what we are to expect in the body of his History, he entertains us in the first entrance into it with a false and groundless aspersion of the Marriage of King Henry with Ann Bullen. Sanders for the deeper blackening of Q Elizabeth tell's his Readers that King Henry, before his Marriage with Ann Bullen, had known her Sister, and her Mother, and that she was his Natural Daughter. This he affirms with an air of Authority, without offer of proof, as became one, who addressed himself to a Spanish Reader; but our Author, who could not expect so great a resignation of Reason, presents this Calumny in a better dress, and suborns Parliaments and Popes to support it. The King, §. 17 he saith, was conscious of some Impediments why he could not lawfully marry her, for which an Act of Parliament 28. Hen. 8.7. c. never after repealed, plainly declared her Daughter Elizabeth uncapable of the Crown: and of which those words in the Dispensation procured from Clement the seventh, Etiamsi illa tibi alias secundo aut remotiori consanguinitatis, aut primo affinitatis gradu, etiam ex quocunque licito vel illicito coitu proveniente invicem conjuncta sit, do give some suspicion. If ever Sanders' Title was endangered, this Period shakes it; for certainly never was Assurance so perfect in Idea as that of this Author; Who in a knowing age, Protestant Country, and Learned University, to prove that the King was conscious of some Impediments very calmly refers us to a a Albeit those Acts [concerning the ratification of the King's Marriage with the Lady Ann Bolen] were then made, as it was thent hought, by Your Majesty, Nobles, and Commons upon a pure, perfect, and clear foundation, thinking the said Marriage than had between Your Highness, and the said Lady Ann in their Consciences to have been pure, sincere, perfect, and good; and so was reputed, accepted, and taken in the Realm till now of late that God hath caused to be brought to light certain just, true, and lawful Impediments unknown at the making of the said Acts— Albeit that Your Majesty not knowing of any lawful Impediments entered into the bonds of the said unlawful Marriage etc. 28. Hen. 8. c. 7. Pultous Coll. Lond. 1632. Statute, which in express words saith that the King knew not of any Impediments. The Act: doth, as any one may see, mention some Impediments, for which the Marriage is declared unlawful; but withal plainly saith they were unknown to the King; and then how could they be such as this Author from this Statute would have us understand? This Act of illegitimating Elizabeth, he saith, was never after repealed. From which I gather that our Author is much-what of the same Opinion, as to Q. Elizabeth's Legitimacy, with his Brother the Author of the late Test, tho' it seems he is better bred, than to use his expression. But I cannot think that one, whose Circumstances have made it so much his concern to consult the Statute-book, could be ignorant of the Repeal of this Act, and therefore am of Opinion that this Clause was inserted only, that he might throughout observe a Decorum, and maintain his Character. Not to mention the 35 of Hen. 8. c. 1. which provides for the Succession of the L. Elizabeth, I desire the Reader to cast his Eye on the Margin a There is nothing, which We Your Subjects for our parties can, may, or aught more firmly, entiredly, and assuredly, in the purity of our hearts think, or with our mouths declare and confess to be true, then that Your Majesty our Sovereign Lady is, and in very deed, and of most mere right aught to be, by the Law of God, and the Laws and Statutes of this Realm our most rightful and lawful Sovereign, Liege, Lady, and Queen: and that Your Majesty is rightly, lineally, and lawfully descended, and come of the blood Royal of this Kingdom, in and to whose Princely person without all doubt ambiguity, scruples, or question, the Imperial Estate of this Realm is invested &— For which Causes we Your said Subjects as thereunto constrained by the Laws of God and Man can no less do then humbly beseech Your Majesty that it be enacted &c.— And that all Sentences, Judgements, and Decrees had, made, declared, set forth, published, and promulged: and also as much of every Clause, Article, Branch, Matter, or thing contained or expressed in any Act or Acts of Parliament, as be in any thing repugnant, contrary, or derogatory to this our said Declaration etc. shall be utterly frustrate, void, and of none effect, and also shall and may be cancelled, defaced, and put in perpetual Oblivion etc.— 1st. Eliz. c. 3. , where he will find the Act of Illegitimacy repealed in Expressions so full and vigorous, that it is hard to imagine what could tempt our Author to so extravagant an Assertion, but the ambition of exceeding all Examples. But the citing of an Act, which, when consulted, proves the contradictory of that for which it was referred to; and the denying the Repeal of a Statute, which is abrogated in as plain words as possible, do not furnish Matter enough for a Parenthesis with this Author. To close it therefore a passage is cited from a Dispensation, which he has procured from Clement the seventh. Since he urges us with this Dispensation, it is to be hoped that he esteems it genuine. If so, we have met with a Bull, wherein the Marriage betwixt King Henry and Katherine is declared null and invalid. But he, who in this Paragraph citys a passage from Pope Clement's Bull of Divorce, will, in the next Paragraph but one, §. 19 show us that the Pope was not singular in his Judgement, when he refused to grant such a Bull. It is indeed certain that the Pope was both for and against the Divorce according as different Interests inclined him; but this is a truth, which it ill becomes a Roman-Catholic to confess. All Histories agree that a Bull was brought over by Cardinal Campegio; but that this, which our Author refers to, could be the Copy of that or of any other Bull is absurd to imagine. For tho' false Latin and incoherence are perhaps no arguments of its being spurious, yet there is in it one Blunder, which I dare not think his Holiness could be guilty of. The Pope after he has declared the Marriage of King Henry with Catharine, as being his Brother's Relict, null, gives the King licence to contract a See the Bull in Anti-Sanderus, or in Lord Herbert's Hist. of King Hen. 8th. p. 279. Lond. Edit. A. 1683. cum quacunque alia muliere, modo ne sit Relicta dicti Fratris tui. i e. with any other Woman provided it be not the same Woman; Which one, who had not an aversion to a quibble, would call a Bull of his Holiness'. As for the Clause of Dispensation here cited, Luther in all his sallies has not miscalled that Prince, if he was so fatally stupid, as that when he pretended scruples of Conscience for having married the Relict of his deceased Brother, he could at the same time desire the Pope to dispense with his Marrying within the same degree of Affinity. The whole series of the original Instructions, Messages, and Letters, which passed between Rome and England on that Occasion, are all a In Dr. Burnet's Collections Vol. 1st. Lond. 1679. extant, in which there is not the least mention of a matter of so grand importance. We have also the b Burnet's Hist. of Ref. Vol 1. Coll. p. 31. Decretal Bull, which was desired in favour of the King and drawn up in England to be subscribed at Rome, which yet contains not any such Dispensation. But I need not insist any longer in proving this Bull to be inauthentical, since I am certain it is more this Author's Interest than ours, that it should be so. I doubt not but the Reader is satisfied from this one specimen, wherein he finds so much falsehood crowded up into so little room, what esteem he ought to have of this Writer's Integrity. Cardinal Wolsey when he discovered the King's affections settled on Ann Bullen, one inclined to Lutheranism, he proves averse now to what he had formerly advanced, and delays the decision of the Divorce so long, till at last the Pope revoked the Cause etc. I confess there is other Authority for this besides Sanders, higher than whom this Author seldom rises. But Dr. Burnet, whom the Author, or at least the Editor ought in justice to have consulted, has made it appear from undoubted Records that this is a Mistake. c Burn. V. 1. p. 55. The joint thanks of the King and Ann Bullen to the Cardinal for his diligence and industry in their behalf; the d Burn. V. 1. Coll. p. 80. tears and supplications of Dr. Bennet the Cardinal's Agent to the Pope, that He would not avocate the cause, but leave it in the hands of the Legates; and the e Ibid. p. 81. Apologetic Letter of the Pope to Wolsey, wherein he excuses himself for having avocated it, and thereby grieved the Cardinal, stand upon Record to the contradiction of this dream of Sanders, and to the shame of those, who, after these Authentic Registers are published to the world, go on without remorse to transcribe that hardy Writer. It is said that some others of the chief of the English Clergy, whether it were conscientiously, or out of the same disaffection of theirs to Ann Bullen, I cannot tell, much disliked the Divorce. It is said, that is, by Sanders, whom our Author faithfully translates. That some others disliked the divorce. i e. besides Wolsey, who did not at all dislike it. Of the chief of the English Clergy. The Bishop's use to be esteemed the chief of the Clergy; but we are assured from the Authority of all our Historians, that all the Bishops did under their Hands and Seals declare the Marriage unlawful, except Fisher, who doth not amount to our Author's some others. Whether it were out of Conscience, or out of the same disaffection of theirs to Ann Bullen, I cannot tell. How awkward this Author is, when he would seem to be impartial? Had they disliked the Divorce, He ought in Charity to have judged it was out of Conscience; if their disaffection to A. Bullen was the same with the Cardinal's, we have found it was none at all. After the fall of Wolsey, §. 19 a Bill was given up in the Parliament held 1530 (and the sum demanded from the Clergy as conspiring with the Cardinal) of an 100000 l charges that the King had been put to, to obtain so many Instruments from Foreign Universities, which had decided this Matter. Here indeed Sanders failed our Historian, and therefore this was supplied from Dr. Bailiff, a fabulous Writer, who affects too much the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Oratory to be a slave to truth. The Book being not in all hands, the Reader will excuse me if for his Diversion, and to show him what Authors this Writer of Church-Government builds upon, I entertain him in the a He gins his Legend thus." At the time when as the Stars of Heaven frowned upon the Nation to behold Innocence swaying the Sceptre of this Land so misbecomingly, in the seven and thirtieth Year of the Reign of the most Noble (though unfortunate) King Henry the sixth, and in the Year one thousand, four hundred, fifty and nine after the time that a Virgin Daughter had produced her Father, and a Creature her Creator, (when the blessed Vine sprang from the same Grape it bore, and the root of Jesse shot from the Spring) the Divine Providence brought forth under succour, whose after growth made it soon known to the world how worthily he received the 2 Names (which both his Christendom and his Parents bestowed upon him within the Collegiate Church and Town of Beverly situate within the Province of York, about eight score miles distant Northwards from the Head-City of the Nation) viz. of John and FISHER. He goes on to compare him with John the Baptist not without Ob and Sol. One of his Comparisons it, that the First died for saying to King Herod, it is not lawful for thee to take thy Brother's Wife. The second for saying to King Henry it is not lawful for thee to put away thy Brother's Wife. Having showed how deservedly the name of JOHN was bestowed upon the Subject of his History, he next shows that he deserved also to be call●d F●SHER being indeed (as indeed he was) a true FISHER of men. So much may suffice to give the Reader a just Idea of this Author's Intellectuals. The Conclusion shows how servilely he employed them in flattering the Usurper Cromwell, whom that party hoped to make a Proselyte." Oliva vera is not so hard to be construed Oliverus, as that it may not be believed that a Prophet rather than an Herald gave the common Father of Christendom the now Pope of Rome (Innocent the tenth) such Ensigns of his Nobility (viz. a Dove holding an Olive-branch in her Mouth) since it falls short in nothing of both being a Prophecy, and fulfilled, but only his Highness running into her Arms, whose Emblem of Innocence bears him already in her Mouth. Life and Death of J. Fisher. Lond. 1655. Margin with the Prologue and Epilogue of that Comedy which the Author of it calls, The Life and Death of John Fisher Bishop of Rochester: When He has read it, he will excuse me, if I decline the trouble of so much as considering what relies upon the sole Authority of that raving Legendary. From which Universities the King is said to have procured their suffrages for his Divorce not without seeing several of them with great Sums of Money. Concerning which see the Testimonies of several Authors produced by Sanders, (p. 49. etc.) some of those he quotes saying that they had Money offered to themselves; some that they were Eye witnesses of it received by others. I once indeed thought that Sanders was the most impudent and shameless Writer, which ever pretended to History; But am now afraid, having seen those Forgeries, for which that Author has been so deeply stigmatised, brought upon the Stage again, some may be apt to think there is one Person in the World who has a fairer title to that Character, than Herald For as if Sanders had not enough of imposture, even his Testimony is by this Writer corrupted. Some of those saying they had Moneys offered to themselves. But the Some, the they, and the themselves do with Sanders amount only to one, and he no other than Cochlaeus. Nor was Money offered to him for his suffrage, as it is here represented, but on condition He would write a book in Defence of the King's cause, or give himself the trouble of collecting the Sentences of the Germane Universities in favour of it. So that, were Cochlaeus a Person of credit, and we obliged to believe him, this would be capable of a fair Interpretation, and the Money might justly be presumed offered not as a Bribe, but a Reward. Some that they were Eye-witnesses of it received by Others. But the some, and the Eye-witnesses are again but one unknown Bishop of Brasile. As for this Calumny of Sanders concerning the buying of Subscriptions, the Reader will find a full Confutation of it in a Burn. Hist. Vol. 1. p. 89. 90. &. Dr. Burnet, who amongst other undoubted Evidences of the falsehood of this Scandal, has given us the Original Letters of the King's Agents, wherein with the greatest earnestness imaginable they labour to satisfy the King, that his Instructions not to corrupt Subscribers had been religiously observed. Tho' with your leave to make a little digression concerning this Controversy, these Universities, at least some of them, considered only the point of the unlawfulness of one Marrying his Brother's Wife, when such Marriage was consummate by carnal knowing her, Without considering that Circumstance whether Catherine was carnally known by her first Husband. It is only his Modesty to call this a Digression, for it is as much to his purpose, as that which goes before, or follows after. It is true that some of the foreign Universities do mention the Consummation; But a See these Censures of the Universities. Bur. V 1. Coll. p. 89. they put no other Terms in their Answer then was proposed to them in the Question; so that this is no Argument that their Sentence did not reach the King's case, but that the Consummation by Arthur was not then doubted of, since the Question was proposed by the King's Agents indifferently; sometimes with, sometimes without that Limitation. It is therefore an impertinent Observation which is here made of their not considering whether Catherine was carnally known or not by her first Husband, since they were desired only to answer a speculative Question, not to judge of a matter of fact. Prince Arthur being thought somewhat infirm and being but fifteen years old when he Married her, and dying shortly after. In Latin thus, b Sand. de Sch. p. 2. Edit. Colon. 1628. Eo quod Arthurus decimum quintum aetatis annum vix dum attingens, ex lento praeterea morbo laboraret, cujus tabe post quintum mensem confectus ex hac vita migravit. So the 2 Deponents, Sanders, and this Author. But the c See the Depositions taken from the Original Records. Herbert. p. 270. Witnesses examined upon Oath before the Legates deposed that Pr. Arthur was above fifteen at the time of his Marriage, of a good and Sanguine Complexion, vigorous, and robust, that he bedded with his Princess every Night, and that the decay of which he died was imputed to his excesses in the Bed. You may see if you have the curiosity what is said for the consummation of that Marriage in Fox, against it in Sanders. Not to indulge our curiosity too far, it may with modesty be affirmed, that the forsan cognitam in the a See the Bull, and Breve in Lord Herbert. p. 264. Bull and the cognitam without forsan in the Breve, (and these words not put into the body of either, as a Clause to make the Dispensation more large, but in the Preamble as part of the matter of Fact represented to the Pope) the b Bur. V 1. p. 35. not giving Prince Henry the title of Prince of Wales for half an Year after Arthur's death, the c Lord Herbert. p. 270. Solemn benediction of the Nuptial Bed, the d Ibid. Depositions of so many honourable Witnesses of their being constantly bedded together, the e Fox's Acts and Mon. p. 1051. Edit. Lond. 1583. proofs taken by the Spanish Ambassadors of the consummation of the Marriage, and the f Lord Herbert. p. 271. Expressions of Prince Arthur to his Servants which implied the same, are greater Arguments for the Affirmative, than any thing which is by Sanders, or can be by this Author, advanced for the Negative. Tho' the former Marriage had been consummate many Learned Men of that Age of several Nations (amongst whom were Fisher Bishop of Rochester, and Tonstal Bishop of Duresme) whom you may find diligently reckoned up to the Number of almost Twenty by Sanders, wrote books in Justification that the Marriage of Henry with Catherine was a matter dispensable. It has been already said that all the Bishops except Fisher had given it under their Hands and Seals that the King's Marriage was unlawful. In all the Memorials of those times, Fisher is the only Bishop we find mentioned to have wrote for it. If Tonstal wrote for it, yet the Bishop of Duresme did not; For Tonstal's book according to a Sand. p. 42. Sanders, who is this Man's Author, was given in to the Legates, and Tonstal then was Bishop of London. b Lord Herbert. p. 402. Being afterwards made Bishop of Duresme he was sent with others to persuade Katherine to acquiesce in the Divorce; he used several Arguments to convince her of the justice of it; She urging his former Opinion in favour of her cause, he replied that he had only pleaded for the amplitude and fullness of the Bull; but that the Consummation of the former Marriage had now been judicially proved, the second Marriage declared by the Sentences of the Universities incestuous and contrary to the Law of God, and therefore by the Pope's Bull, however ample, indispensable. Which is a Demonstration against what this Author asserts that Tonstal was one who justified the second Marriage, tho' the former had been Consummate. Sanders his diligence in reckoning up those who wrote for the Queen's cause, we do not question, but we much doubt his Veracity. It required an extraordinary diligence to find a book written by a c Sand. p. 53. Bishop of Bristol 13 Years before ever there was such a Bishopric. But should we grant Sanders' full tale of almost twenty these are neither to be compared in Number, nor Authority with those, who wrote against it. An d Burn. Hist. V 1. p. 106. hundred books were shown in Parliament written for the Divorce by Divines and Lawyers beyond Sea, besides the Determinations of twelve the most celebrated Universities of Europe. To which might have been added the e See the Abstract of what was written for the Divorce Burn. V. 1. p. 97. Testimonies of the Greek, and Latin Fathers, the Opinions of the Scool-men, the Authority of the Infallible Pope, who in our Author's Introduction granted a Bull of Divorce, and the Sentence of one more Infallible than He, the a Leu. 18.16. and c. 20.21. Author of the Pentateuch. This was agreed on all sides, that Papa non habet potestatem dispensandi in impedimentis jure divino naturali conjugium dirimentibus, sed in iis quae jure Canonico tantum dirimunt. This was not so Universally agreed as our Author would persuade us, for those, b Burn. Hist. Vol. 1. p. 103. who wrote for the Queen's Cause, pleaded that the Pope's power of dispencing did reach farther than to the Laws of the Church, even to the Laws of God, for he daily dispensed with the breaking of Oaths and Vows tho' that was expressly contrary to the c With us the third. second Commandment. And when the Question was debated in the Convocation, One d Id. ibid. p. 129. voted the Prohibition to be Moral, but yet Dispensable. Others gathered the Law in Levit. 18.16. dispensable in some cases from the express Dispensation made therein Deut. 25.5. But on the other side it was then answered e Ibid. p. 105. that the Provision about marrying the Brother's Wife only proves the ground of the Law is not in its own Nature immutable, but may be dispensed with by God in some cases; but because Moses did it by divine Revelation, it does not follow that the Pope can do it by his Ordinary Authority. For the general Judgement of the Learned, and particularly for the Universities, after you have read the Story in Sanders concerning them, and especially concerning Oxford, as likewise what is said by Lord Herbert, See what the Act of Parliament 1ᵒ Mariae saith of them. What the general judgement of the Learned was, has been intimated already; What were the Sentiments of the Universities, will best be learned from their solemn Determinations; After I have read the Story in Sanders concerning them and especially concerning Oxford, I am very well satisfied that I have been abused; and that the rather when I see what is said by Lord Herbert a Lord Herbert. p. 352. , who on purpose publishes an Original Instrument to confute the lie of Sanders who had called the Resolution of our Universities in a sort surreptitious. As for the Act of Queen Mary, it was the Act of a Queen in her own cause, and the 25 Hen. 8.22. c. is as great a proof of the Lawfulness of the Divorce, as this is of the Unlawfulness of it. What censures were passed upon this Act, when made, may be seen in b Burn. Hist. V 2. p. 254. Dr. Burnet. The Act mentioning certain bare and untrue conjectures upon which Archbishop Cranmer founded his sentence of Divorce, This Author will have these relate to the consummation of the Marriage of Katherine with Arthur. But this is but a bare conjecture of his, and very probably untrue. For Cranmer c See the Abstract of the grounds of the Divorce Burn. V. 1. Coll. p. 95. thinking the Marriage of a Brother's Wife unlawful, and the Essence of all Marriage to consist not in the carnalis copula, but in the conjugal pact, might upon these Principles conclude the Marriage with Henry unlawful, tho' that with Arthur had been proved not consummate, and therefore need not build on any conjectures concerning the Consummation. Tho' had he founded his judgement upon that supposition, It, if I may so speak with due reverence to an Act of Parliament, was neither a bare conjecture, nor untrue. As for the Hesitancy of the German-Protestant Divines to declare the Divorce lawful. I cannot conceive why it is urged by this Author who certainly doth not prefer the Judgement of these Protestant-Doctors to the contrary Determination of the Roman-Catholic Universities. It has been observed upon this Author's writings that he is no great Friend of either Communion, of which We have here a very good Confirmation; when to prove the illegality of K. Henry's Divorce, he declines the Authority of the Roman-Catholic Universities, as Mercenary, and appeals to the Germane Divines, whom he will have to be of his Opinion. Now what can be a greater blemish to the Roman Communion, then that those great Bodies, which may justly be supposed its greatest Strength, should so cheaply barter away their Consciences? Or what more Honourable testimony given to the Leaders of the Reformation, then that their judgement should be appealed to in an instance which makes it appear that their Integrity could not be so far swayed by the prospect of a common reformed Interest, as their Adversaries are said to have been by the scandalous temptations of a Bribe? But this is not a single instance how much more he regards his Hypothesis, than the honour of his Communion. Thus below, §. 122 to prove that King Edward's Reformation was not Universal, he accuses those Clergy, that did comply, of Hypocrisy; and to show there were some non-complyers, he instances in the frequent Rebellions of the Romanists which he saith would not have been, had they not been justified to them by the Clergy. The most bitter Adversary to the Church of Rome would wish her such Advocates. I have made this Digression to show you the diversity of Opinions, which was in this difficult Matter (that you may see the Pope stood not alone in his judgement) and how the several Interests of several times justified and condemned the same thing. I am very well convinced, tho' not from our Author's proof, that the Pope stood not alone in his judgement. For certainly He that holds both sides of a Contradiction cannot be singular in his Opinion. The Pope judged for the Divorce in the 17th Paragraph, when the Dispensation was procured from him; but here in the 19th he judges against it. But our Author mistakes that Pope's Character, when he represents him as passing Sentence according to the merits of the Cause, it being certain that in this whole procedure He acted by no other Principles, than his Passions or Interest. And therefore this Author observes a greater Decorum when, telling us in the same Page, that the King had now no hopes of obtaining a Divorce from the Pope; he does not pretend the Reason to have been because the Pope was convinced of the Unlawfulness of it, but because at the same time he stood much in awe of the Emperor victorious in Italy, and a near Kinsman and Favourer of Queen Katherine. He needed not therefore to have instanced in the different Opinions of divers Men, since the actings of the Pope alone would sufficiently have convinced us that the several Interests of several times justified and condemned the same thing. Now to return to our Matter in hand. So that it seems he has digressed for 2 Pages to no other purpose then to show that his Paratheses are of the same Stamp with his Parentheses. The aforesaid Sum of 100000 l spent upon the Universities abroad etc. This is again a transcript from Dr. Bailie, and I need say no worse of it. §. 20 The King, he saith, excepted at the Limitation of [Quantum per legem Christi licet] in the Title given him by the Clergy, and so at last upon renewed threats this Clause also was procured to be omitted. See Antiquit. Britannic. The Author knew, or might have known, that the Author of the Antiquities was in this mistaken. For Dr. Burnet a Hist. V 1. p. 112. from the Cabala p. 244. has upon this passage in A. Bp. Parker observed, that King Henry, when the Province of York demurred upon granting the King the Title of Head, as improper, in his Answer to them urges that Words are not always understood in the strictest Sense, and mentions the Explanation made in the Province of Canterbury, that it was in so far as is agreeable with the Law of Christ, Accordingly it is represented as passed with this Qualification by our other b Herbert p. 348. Full. Eccl. Hist. Book 5. p. 184. Dr. Heylin Ref. Justif. § 2. Historians. He refers us again to Dr. Bailie. But the Reader, I presume, has had enough of him already. The excluding the Patriarch is, he saith, contrary to his 4th Thesis. It is pity these Theses were not written in the last Century for the Use of those Roman-Catholics who excluded the Pope. They could find no grounds for the Papal Authority from Scripture, Antiquity, or Reason; but they might perhaps have been convinced from our Author's Theses, which are an Authority distinct to all those. This Paragraph concludes with the mangled Citation from Dr. Hammond which has already been animadverted on, and is a sore which if I do not here again touch upon, it is because I would not gall him too much. Cranmer is said to have divorced the King from Q. Katherine after he had excluded the Pope's Authority out of his Dominions. § 22 The Divorce c Burn. V. 1. p. 131. compared with p. 144. was pronounced in May 1533, and the Extinguishing Act did not pass till March following: Cranmer in the Sentence is called Legate of the Apostolic See. By this Instance it is plain how implicitly our Author follows a Sand p. 73. Sanders in his Chronology, as well as History. Warham a favourer of the Queen's cause; b Sand. p. 55. Varamus qui summo studio Reginae partes adjuverat, saith Sanders. This favourer of the Queen's Cause when the Marriage was first proposed, c Burn. V. 1. p. 35. declared it was contrary to the Law of God; He induced d Ibid. p. 36. the e Hen. the 8th. Prince when of Age to enter his Protestation against it; f Ibid. p. 38. He subscribed and persuaded the other Bishops to subscribe to the unlawfulness of it; He earnestly pressed Fisher to concur, and upon Refusal made another set that Bishop's Name and Seal to the Resolution of the other Bishops. These are some of the favours, which Warham showed to the Queen's Cause. §. 23 The Clergy having declared the King Supreme Head of the Church, it seemed reasonable that no Acts of the Church should stand good without the concurrence of the Head. This is a wild and senseless Calumny; the C. of England thinks no Acts which are purely Spiritual want the King's concurrence; her Sacraments and her Censures she esteems valid independently on all humane Authority; her Charter she derives immediately from Christ. The Clergy did indeed bind themselves not to promulge and execute any Canons without the King's leave; but the execution, of which they abridge themselves, is such as hath influence on the Civil Rights of the Subject, and therefore necessarily required the concurrence of the Supreme Civil power. He citys from Dr. Heylin an Answer made by Gardiner (and allowed by the Convocation) to a Parliamentary Remonstrance. But either my a Reform. Just. in the Historical Tracts Edit. Lond. 1681. Edition of Heylin, or (which I am the rather apt to think from the infidelity of his other citations) this Author deceives me. The next Paragraph descants upon the request of the Clergy that the Laws Ecclesiastical might be reviewed by 32 Commissioners. §. 24 This he complains was never sufficiently weighed by Dr. Heylin, Dr. Hammond, nor Dr. Fern. The business of those Advocates was to defend the Reformation, and it is one of our Author's pertinent remarks, that they did not meddle with what was not reformed. The Reformation of the Canons was a design, of which Nothing worse can be said, than that it did not take effect. If it trouble him that Canon's contrary to the King's Prerogative, Laws of the Land, good of the Subject, and Laws of God should be reformed, no Honest man can pity him. If he quarrels with the competency of the Reviewers, that has been spoke to by the b Animadv. p. 36. Animadverter. If by Canon's Synodal he will understand the Constitutions of any other Synods but those of this Nation, it is out of his wont pride to outface the Statutes. For the c Forasmuch as such Canons, Constitutions, and ordinances as heretofore have been made by the Clergy of this Realm, cannot now be viewed, examined, and determined by the▪ King's Highness, and the 32 Persons according to the Petition of the Clergy— 25. Hen. 8.19. c. Act expressly limits the Review to those Canons which had been enacted by English Synods, and had no need to meddle with any other, since We never did own the Authority of any but what were so established. I need not speak any thing to the 25th Paragraph, §. 25.26. because what is said there, is unsaid in the 26th. But our Author has a Supposal here which may deserve a Remark. He supposes that Gardener retracted his acknowledgement of a Regal Supremacy for this reason, because by sad experience he saw it much enlarged beyond those bounds within which only they formerly had maintained it just. §. 46 But elsewhere this same Author will suppose that Gardener was ensnared in King Edward's time by that Sense of Supremacy, of which he had been a Zealous abettor in King Henry's; and this Sense, which Gardiner had of King Henry's Supremacy, in another Paragraph is said to have been gross and impure, §. 37 and to have extended the King's power even to the Alteration of Faith and Doctrines; beyond which bounds I would learn of this Author how it could be enlarged. In this methinks he is something Autocatacritical. If it can be worth our while to look back upon what has been performed in this Chapter, We shall find that Nothing farther has been advanced, then that the Clergy gave King Henry the Title of Supreme, promised to enact no new Canons without the King's Assent, and requested that the Old ones might be Reformed. The rest of his Discourse is only flourish, which our Author made Use of that he might have the greater scope for his Invention. All that is matetial in 7 Leaves might have been comprised in fewer Words, and this would have heightened our Esteem of the Author, tho' it might have depressed the price of the Pamphlet. A Reply to his 3d Chapter. §. 26 WE are come now to our Author's Second Head; the Supremacy of King Henry is still the Topick, i. e. He is still writing against his Forefathers the Roman-Catholics. The Extent of this Supremacy he takes from Acts of Parliament; Repealed, and not Repealed make no difference with him. All the Expressions, which seem to extend the Supremacy, are invidiously raked together; and those, which limit it, craftily suppressed. The Statutes are put upon the rack, and because the Text doth not speak plain enough, our Author has added his Gloss. He tells us that the Clergy having given the King the Title of Supreme, the Parliament vested in him all Jurisdiction to the said Dignity belonging. The Parliament gave the King no New Jurisdiction, but restored the Old; nor did they place in him any Power but what was recognized by the Clergy, who certainly did not delude the King with the Compliment of an empty Title. The extent of this Jurisdiction annexed to the Crown He will have us learn from the 1st of Q. Elizabeth; but it seems more proper to learn it from the words of the same Statute of King Henry. His Comments upon the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction, here ascribed to the Prince, might have been spared, if he had attended to an easy distinction frequently met with in our Writers. They divide Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction into Internal, the inward Government which is in the Court of Conscience; or External, that which is practised in exterior Courts; That proceeds by Spiritual Censures; this by force and corporal Punishments; That is appropriated to the Clergy, and incommunicable to the Secular power; this is originally inherent in the Civil Supreme, and from him derived to Ecclesiastic Governors. Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction when said to be annexed to the Crown ought to be understood in the latter Sense. This also answers what is here cited from the Reformatio Legum, tho' what is urged thence needs no Reply, that Book having never been ratified by any Autoritative Act of our Church. §. 28 In Virtue of this Jurisdiction translated to the King by another Act of Parliament 25. Hen. 8.21. c. the Supreme power of giving all manner of Licenses, Dispensations, Faculties etc. For all Laws and Constitutions merely Ecclesiastical, and in all Causes, not being contrary to the Scriptures, and Laws of God, is not only taken from the Pope, but the Clergy too. Nothing is done in that Act by Virtue of any new-Jurisdiction translated to the King, but by this power originally inherent in the Sovereign. Every Government has a right to dispense with its own Acts, and nothing farther is challenged in that Statute. No Ecclesiastical Constitutions had ever the force of Laws in this Kingdom, but from the Legislative power of the Realm: and the same power, which gave them life, might dispense with them. This the Act saith is evident not only from the wholesome Acts made in King Henry's Reign, but from those made in the time of his Noble Progenitors. It was not therefore a power now first attributed to the Prince, but his Ancient Right, for some Years indeed usurped by the Pope, but now vindicated. This is the true import of that Statute, which when it is fairly represented is at the same time justified. The power of granting Licenses is indeed taken from the Pope, to whom it never rightly belonged; but not from the Clergy, it being expressly provided in the Act, that all Licenses be granted by the Archbishop, or 2 Spiritual Persons. In case of the Archbishop's refusal, the Court of Chancery is to judge whether such refusal be out of Contumacy; which power of the Chancery if it be contrary to our Author's 8th Thesis, it ought the rather to be excused since the a p. 34. Animadverter has observed that that Thesis is contrary to itself. His Notion of the Parliament's coordinacy, with the King in the Supremacy I leave to the Censure of the Learned in the Law; this Act I am sure whence he infers it, positively asserts the King to be Supreme. §. 29 By Virtue of the same Supremacy translated to the King, the necessity of the Metropolitan's being confirmed by the Patriarch is taken away. The Statute whence he collects this mentions neither Metropolitan nor Patriarch. It enacts indeed that no Person of this Realm shall be presented to the Bishop of Rome, otherwise called the Pope, to or for the office of Bishop or Archbishop of this Realm. But the Arch-Bishops of this Realm are such Metropolitans as owe no Subjection to any Patriarch, and therefore have no necessity of being confirmed by him. Nor doth the Statute take away any such Necessity, for it supposes none. The King's Presentation to a Bishopric, against which he is so warm, was no new Usurpation, but an ancient Right: had he lived some Centuries before the Reformation, he would have had this Grievance to complain of. The 2 next Paragraphs he tells us he had set down before, §. 30. and 31. and I see no reason why they are repeated, but for the Reader's mortification. The 32d Paragraph is that which has got the particle a See the Animadv. p. 65. as in it. The said Archbishop, when no Archbishop had been mentioned before is another of our Author's Idioms in the same Period. The Act here descanted upon, expired with King Henry, and it will be time enough to consider it, when it is revived again. If Prohibition of appeals to Rome, and making the King the last Appellee be an Act of the Reformation, §. 33 it has been proved that King Henry the 2d, and all his Bishops (except Becket) were Reformers. §. 34 Some Acts of Parliament are cited in the 34th Paragraph which were repealed by King Edward, and yet make up part of that accumulative charge which is laid on the Reformation. Even the Six Articles are urged, which drained the blood of so many Reformers. But the Protestants in justifying the King's Supremacy must allow their own Condemnation if teaching any thing contrary to the six Articles etc. That is, all those who own an Authority, must justify the abuse of it; They who obey the just Commands of their Prince, must obey him when he commands what is unjust. Father Walsh acknowledges, I suppose, the Pope's Supremacy; but he thinks himself severely dealt with, when he is censured for not being a Rebel. Having quoted several Acts he comes to reflect upon them a little. viz. for six Pages. First he copes with Arch Bishop Bramhal, but I should be unjust to that Prelate's memory, if in so unequal an engagement I should think he wanted my Assistance. What is said by the Bishop is not said only, but demonstrated. This Author has urged nothing against him, but what he might have fetched from the Bishop's own Confutation of Sergeant. The Question here discussed has already been debated in the a p. 20. Animadversions, and, if the Reader desires to be farther satisfied, I cannot more oblige him then by sending him to the Most Reverend and Learned Author. He will find there a just and solid Vindication of a Noble Cause, which suffers when it falls into weak management, and is made part of an Occasional Pamphlet. Having catechised the Bishop he next canvaseth that Statute of much concernment, that the King shall have power from time to time to Visit, Repress, and Reform all such Errors, and Heresies as by any manner of Spiritual Authority lawfully may be Reformed. But this Act will be without the reach of our Author's cavils if it be observed; That the Power, by which the King Visits and Reforms, is not Spiritual, but Political; That a Power is not given him to declare Errors, but to repress them,; that the determination of Heresy is by Act of Parliament limited to the Authority of Scriptures, 4 first General Councils, and assent of the Clergy in their Convocation; that the King hath not all the Power given him which by any manner of Spiritual Authority may be lawfully exercised, (for he has not the power of the Keys) but a power given him to reform all Heresies by Civil Authority, which the Church can do by her Spiritual; That it is impossible it should be proved that this power of Visiting and Reforming is a necessary Invasion of the Office of Spiritual Pastors, because when the Prince doth it by them, commanding them to do the Work, and exacting of them a discharge of their duty, He doth this without Usurping their Office, and yet doth it by a power, distinct from, and independent on theirs: And lastly, that the Prince is obliged to take care that all Acts of reforming be executed by their proper Ministers, because else he transgresses the Power prescribed in this Statute, so to reform Errors as may be most to the pleasure of Almighty God. The Application is obvious, and will satisfy the Reader that our Author must part with a whole Paragraph, if He will, as he pretends, §. 35. n. 4. remove the Misinterpretation of this Act. §. 36 The next Paragraph makes remarks upon a Proclamation, and speech of King Henry's, and some words of Cromwell; which were very justifiable, if it were either necessary that we must defend them, or the Defence not obvious to every one who thinks. His Conclusion of this Chapter amounts to no more than that Bishop Gardiner was too great a Courtier, and Calvin too credulous; §. 37 One was gross in his sense of the Supremacy, and the other zealous against it so misrepresented. Which will then begin to be pertinent, when it is proved that Gardener was a Protestant, and Calvin a son of the Church of England. There is so little in this Chapter which affects the Reformation, that it cannot be worth recapitulating. A Reply to Chapter the 4th. §. 38 NOW he comes to the times of Edward the 6th. Now than he first gins to remember the Title of his Book. Here he finds all the Supremacy confirmed to Edward the Sixth, which was formerly conceded to Henry the 8th. And yet the Reformers are accused of Innovation, for continuing what they found established by Roman-Catholics, he complains of the Repeal of several Statutes made in confirmation of the Determinations of the Church. §. 39 But by the Church is meant the Church of Rome, and it is no great Crime in a Reforming Prince that he did not think himself obliged to punish with Death all her Determinations. These Statutes now repealed were revived by Q. Mary, and again repealed by Q. Elizabeth. Which amounts to no more than that Q. Mary was a Roman-Catholic, and Q. Elizabeth a Catholic Reform. Hence he infers by way of Corollary, that the trial of Heresies and Heretics by the Clergy according to the Determinations and Laws of Holy-Church was admitted or excluded here, according as the Prince was Catholic or Reformed. This sentence, carries two faces, and is capable of two very different Constructions. Either it may signify that the Clergy were, or were not the tryers of Heretics, according as the Prince was Romanist or Reform, ‖ and then it is false; Or that the Determinations of Holy Church (You must understand the C. of Rome) were or were not the Rule of such Trials, according as the Prince was of the Roman or Reformed Communion, and then it is wonderfully impertinent. § 40 This seeker goes on, and finds it affirmed in an Act of Parliament, that All Jurisdiction Spiritual and Temporal is derived from the King as Supreme Head of the Church and Realm of England. But if he had pleased He might have found too, that this Act is repealed, and that therefore we are under no Obligation to defend it. But if Jurisdiction be understood in the limited sense before explained, this Act has no poison in it. And so it will be understood by any one, who consults the Context. But this Act has been so largely and distinctly discussed by a Learned a Bishop Sanderson's Episcopacy not prejudicial to Regal power. Casuist that a farther disquisition of it is needless. The change of Election of Bishops by Congee d'eslire into Collation by Letters-Patents is a bad instance of the King's Supremacy; for if such collation infers a Regal Supremacy, those, who have read that Bishoprics were originally Donative, not Elective, will be apt to conclude that the King's of England were always Supreme. Nor is this Nomination at all injurious to the Divine Right of Bishops, which is not derived from the Persons Electing or Nominating, but the Pastors Consecrating. But we have him again crying out 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. He finds the King and Parliament authorising Arch-Bishops, Bishops etc. By Virtue of their Acts, to take Informations concerning the not using of the Common-Prayer etc. Therein prescribed and to punish the same by Excommunication etc. The first and last of these & cs, are very artificially placed for corrupting the Text. After Bishops should have followed, Chancellors and Commissaries, after Excommunication, Sequestration, and other Censures and Processes. So that the Authority given by this Act doth not necessarily respect the Bishops, and that Power of Excommunicating, which they have jure divino, but may relate to the power given to Chancellors, and Commissaries, and other Officers, who plead no such divine right to their respective Functions; or if the Bishops are included, yet not so as that they derive the power of Excommunicating from this Act, but of inflicting the other punish-ments, which by this Act may be inflicted. Or let us suppose the Bishop's authorised by this Act to Excommunicate, and Excommunication taken in the strictest sense for internal Censures, yet this will be no injury to their Jus divinum; until it be proved that because God has gave the Bishops a power to Excommunicate, therefore the King may not command them to put it in Execution, where there is a just Cause. §. 41 He finds 32 Persons commissioned to reform the Laws Ecclesiastical. But this he found before in King Henry's Reign, where it has already been considered, and whither I refer the Reader, as often as this Author shall be pleased to remind us of this Discovery. §. 42 He finds Six Prelates and Six others commissioned to make a new form of Consecration of Bishop's and Priest's. He might have found that this Act as well as the former was made at the a See the Petitions of the Clergy. Burn. Vol. 2. p. 47. request of the Convocation. Nothing is by him excepted against the Form itself; and for the Authority, the Synod petitioned such a Commission might be granted; the b Six Prelates, and six Divines Bur. V. 2. p. 141. Persons commissioned were all Clergy Men; and c King Edward's Articles. Art. 35. Bur. V 2. Coll. p. 218. the Synod confirmed it when done. As for the Oath against the Pope inserted in the new Ordinal, it was by birth a Roman-Catholic; d Fox. p. 1092. King Henry's Bishops took it without scruple; That e Compare the Oath in Fox with the Oath of Supremacy as it now stands. part of it, which this Author thinks most offensive is since put out, and he may be as severe as he pleaseth upon a Nonentity. The Heretical Catechism in the 43d Paragraph shall be spoken to when it meets us again in the 166th. §. 43 The 44th would justify a Protestation of Bishop Bonner's, which that Bishop himself a Bur. V 2. Coll. p. 112. recanted. He is angry at Fox for calling that Protestation Popish. But the Prelate himself in his recantation of it calls it unadvised, of ill ex-example, unreasonable, and undutiful. If Fox abuses the Bishop it is because Popish signifies something worse than all these. §. 45 We are next entertained with a confused Catalogue of Articles proposed to Bishop Gardiner's Subscription together with our Author's Notes upon them. One of the most pertinent Notes would have been, that Bishop b Fox. p. 1350. 1357. Gardiner subscribed most of these Articles; but this was not for his Interest to observe. His remark is that tho' in some of these Articles the Authority of Parliament is mentioned, yet in none of these is any thing said of the Consent of the Clergy, as necessary to make such Parliamentary or Regal injunctions valid. That the consent of the Clergy was urged to this Bishop, I hope he does not deny; I am sure c §. 110. it is urged by r. that in the charge given in against Gardener it is said, that the Injunctions were of all men for all sorts obediently received. And that this charge was given in, is not denied in the Reply to r. §. 119. elsewhere He confesses it. The meaning must be, that this consent was not urged under the modality of making the Regal Injunctions valid, Nor do I see any Necessity it should; for Gardiner had not yet so far refined his gross sense of the Supremacy, but that he still owned his Obligation to obey His majesty's Godly Injunctions and Ordinances concerning Religion. Neither could the Imposers of these Injunctions, according to their Principles, lay so great a stress on the consent of the Clergy; for if the matter of the Injunctions was unlawful, no Church-Autority could make them lawful; but if it was agreeable to the Law of God, than the Civil Authority without the Synodal (if that had been wanting) was sufficient. From this idle remark the Author has raised as idle a Consequence; From this non-mentioning the consent of the Clergy he collects, that when the Synodal consent of the Clergy is any where else mentioned, as sometimes it is, it is not to add any Authority to these Injunctions thereby. Now to me it seems a wild Inference that because the Synodal consent was once not urged as necessary, therefore, whenever it was urged, it was thought to add no Authority. I may certainly obey my Prince in a thing lawful, tho' my Pastor doth not at the same time exact this Obedience from me; But when they both require the same Duty, there ariseth a new tie of Obedience, and I am now under a double Obligation. But lest we should wonder why the King and Parliament never pleaded any Necessity of the Synodal consent, the Author conjectures the reasons to be, 1st. Because some of the Voters were displaced, and so their suffrage less Authentical. But these places were supplied, and then I would know why those, who succeeded into their Pastoral charge, did not also succeed into their Synodal Authority? and if so, why the Reformers should think the Act of a Synod less Authentical when Ridley sat there, than when Bonner did? His second reason is, Because they saw that the Laws of this National Clergy could stand in no force, but so would also the Laws of the Church, and her Synods which were superior to the English Clergy; And if the King urged his and his Subject's freedom from the Laws of the Church Universal, so must He also from the Laws of his own Church National. Church, Superior Synods, and the Church-Vniversal are words, which sound big; but when they come to be construed, the Laws of the Church, signify Papal Decrees; Superior Synods are put for any Council that is foreign; and the Church-Vniversal dwindles into Roman-Catholic. In this case I hope we may obey our Lawful Pastors, tho' we reject an Usurper; Nor are we quitted from our Obligation to the just Authority of our own Bishops; because we do not submit to the Invasions of Forreigner. But if by Church-Vniversal, and Superior Synods is meant what other People understand by those words, it rests to be proved that the Reformed plead an Exemption from their Authority. §. 46 The 46th Paragraph tells us of God's just judgement on Bishop Gardiner, for having so zealously abetted the King's Supremacy. But the divine Judgements are differently interpreted, according to the different Sentiments of the Interpreters. Other Writers tell us of severer Judgements inflicted on this Prelate, than Deprivation, and that for more flagrant crimes then asserting the Regal Supremacy. He concludes this Chapter with the resentment of the Clergy for their lost Synodal Authority. It is confessed that the Extreme of raising the Ecclesiastical power too high, in the times of Popery, had now produced another of depressing it too much. But this was the Infelicity of the Clergy, not their Crime. The same Authority, which tells us the Clergy complained of this, tells us also that those complainers were the Reformers. But this is a truth, which is industriously concealed, and the Citation mangled lest it should confess too much. Haec discrimina pati Clericis iniquum atque grave visum est, saith he, from the Antiquitates Britannicae. Clericis multo jam acrius atque vigilantius in divina Veritate, quam unquam antea laborantibus, say the Antiquities. This Omission I believe was not for brevity sake, for he doth not use to be so frugal in his Citations. But the Reader was to understand by Clerici the Popish Clergy exclusively to all others, and the decay of Synodal Authority was to be represented not as the grievance, but the fault of the Reformers. For this reason it is that we find this Author indecently insulting oven that pious Martyr Bishop Hooper. All, which I shall observe of it, is this, that what is here said of this Bishop's Appeal from the Ecclesiastical to the Civil power, is applicable to St. Paul's a Acts 25.11. Appeal to Caesar. The cause then was Ecclesiastical, for They b Acts 25.19. had certain questions against him of their own Superstition. And the Bishop might have used St. Paul's Plea, c Acts 24.14. That after the way which they called Heresy, so worshipped he the God of his Fathers, believing all things which are written in the Law and in the Prophets. This Chapter more nearly concerning the Reformation it may not be amiss to give a brief Summary of what is performed in it. It is said, that all the Supremacy was confirmed to Edward the 6th, which was conceded to Henry the 8th; But no reason is given why it should have been diminished: that some Statutes against Heretics were repealed; but this repeal not shown to be without good reason, or good Authority: that all Jurisdiction Spiritual is said to be derived from the Prince; but this Expression taken in a due Sense may be justified, and if it could not, the Act being void, we are under no Obligation to defend it; that the Bishops are authorised by Virtue of an Act of Parliament to excommunicate; but this Interpretation is forced upon the Statute, and the words taken even in this Sense will not bear the Stress which is laid upon them; that 32 Commissioners were appointed to reform the Laws Ecclesiastical, and 6 Prelates with 6 others to reform the Ordinal; but nothing said to show that these did not want a Reformation, or that the Persons commissioned were not qualified, for such a trust; and these two urged as the mere effects of Parliamentary Supremacy, which were the Synodical request of the Clergy: that an Oath of Supremacy was imposed on Persons entering into Holy Orders; but this Oath invented by Papists, and in that part which gives Offence since altered: that an Hypothetical Submission of Bonner was not accepted; but this such a Submission as that Bishop recanted: That the consent of the Clergy was once not urged as necessary to make the Regal Injunctions valid; But no reason assigned why it should have been: That the Clergy complained of their lost Synodal Authority; But these the Reformers, who yet are accused of being no Friends to it: That Bishop Hooper appealed to the Civil power; But so also did St. Paul. The title of this Chapter (lest the Contents may have made the Reader forget it) was, The Supremacy claimed by King Edward the 6th. A Reply to Chapter the 5th. WE are come now to Q. Mary's Reign, the fatal Revolutions of which We would willingly forget, did not the unseasonable importunity of these Men refresh our memories. Our Author had acted the part of a skilful Painter, had he cast a veil over this piece of his History; for the Calamities of this Reign tend little to the Honour of that Religion, and are never properly insisted on, but by those who writ Invectives against Popery; But those Reflections, which create horror in other men's breasts, seem to have a different Effect on this Writer: for in his entrance upon this Reign, it is easy to discover such a new Warmth and Vigour in his Expressions, as betray him to be in a more than ordinary rapture. All that had been done in the two former Reigns by Prince, by State, or by Clergy, were now by an equal Authority of Prince, Clergy, and State reversed, repealed, ejected. His Discourse here has put on a new air, and like the Orator in his triumphs over exiled Catiline he prosecutes declining Heresy with an abiit, excessit, evasit. But here to moderate his Acclamations, let me tell him that this Prince, who thus reverses, repeals, and ejects, was the same a Burn. V. 2. p 237. that gave the Suffolk men full assurance that she would never make any Innovations or changes in Religion; The same, that made an open Declaration in Council, b Bur. V 2. p. 245. that though her own Conscience was stayed in matters of Religion, yet she was resolved not to compel or restrain others: So that this after repealing reflects severely on those Guides, who had the Government of her Conscience, and those Principles, by which She acted. Lay-Supremacy was indeed at last ejected by her, but not till the other parts of the Reformation were reversed by its Influence. If sending out Injunctions in matters Ecclesiastical, using the Title of Head of the Church, convoking Synods, ejecting Bishops by Commission, prohibiting some Preachers, licensing others, inhibiting the Pope's Legate to come into the Kingdom, if these, I say, are admitted to be signs of a Lay-Supremacy, it must be confessed that Q. Mary was such a Supreme. It is not therefore Regal Supremacy, as such, but as countenancing the Reformation, which these men condemn. Those Powers, which in the former Chapter were Invasions of the Church's right, do in this easily escape our Author's Censure. We are told now of the power of the Prince when Protestantism is to be defaced, who in the establishment of it was allowed to have no power in Causes Ecclesiastical. Nor is the Clergy, which here reverses, repeals, and ejects, less liable to Exceptions. For the first change was not of Religion, but of the Pastors; and the Reforming Bishops were ejected before the Reformation. c See them reckoned by this Author. §. 53. Thirteen Prelates we find deprived to make room for a reversing Hierarchy; and of d Bur. V 2. p. 276. Sixteen-thousand Inferior Clergymen (as they were then computed) 12000 turned out for committing the unpardonable Sin of Matrimony. As for the Authority of the State, i. e. the Parliament, it was none, we were told, in the 2 former Reigns, and sure it had no advantage in this if it be remembered, how a Burn. V. 2. p. 252. Elections were managed, and how predominant Spanish Gold was. The 4 next Paragraphs give us an account of the Restitution of things made in Q. Mary's days; § 49 50.51.52. which I allow, and only desire the Reader to carry a long with him what has been hinted of the manner of it. §. 53 Paragraph the 53d questions, whether this Clergy in Q. Mary's days were a lawful Clergy? §. 54. ad §. 65. And the succeeding pages endeavour their Vindication. The Bishops ejected by Q. Mary he has numbered from Fox, but lest we should have too much truth together has took care to qualify it with his Paratheses. Fox mentioning Hooper ejected from Worcester, it is added [he might have said from Gloucester too, for Hooper in the latter end of Edward the 6th 's time held both these Sees together in Commendam.] Our Author might have spared this Observation from Sanders, had he consulted the b Burn. V. 2. App. p. 396. Appendix to the History of the Reformation, where this lie of Sanders is confuted. Hooper was first made Bishop of Gloucester, which before King Henry the 8th 's time, had been part of the Bishopric of Worcester: In King Edward's time these Sees were reunited, so that Hooper had not two Bishoprics, but one that had for some Years been divided into two; He only enjoyed the revenue of Gloucester. [For Worcester, Latimer for Nonconformity to the Six Articles had been ejected out of it, or for fear resigned it, yet (for what reason I know not) could not in King Edward's time be restored to it.] This again is a transcript from the inexhaustible a Sand. p. 181. Sanders. Latimer b Bur. V 2. App. p. 385. 392. & Hist. V 2. p. 95. was not ejected, but freely resigned his Bishopric upon passing the Six Articles, with which he could not comply with a good Conscience. In King Edward's time the House of Commons interposed to repossess him, but he refused to accept of any Preferment. [Taylor was removed from Lincoln by death, not by the Queen, as appears from Fox. p. 1282.] Q. Mary's c Bur. V 2. Coll p 257. Commission for displacing the Bishops is extant, amongst which Tailor is one. Fox positively saith He was deprived; He saith indeed in the place cited that he died, but not that his Death was before his Deprivation. Having given us this Catalogue of the ejected (thus adulterated with his false mixtures) he desires us in Vindication of the just Authority of Q. Mary's Clergy to take notice; That the Ejection of Bishops in Q. Mary's days was not the First, but Second Ejection; the first being made in King Edward's time, when Gardiner, Bonner, Tonstal, Day, Heath, Vesy, were removed from their Sees. But here we have a Supernumerary put in to enhance the Catalogue. Vesy d Godw. Catal. of Bishops. was not deprived, but did resign. His Character in History is so scandalous that he ought to have been deprived, and therefore it had been pardonable to have guessed that he was; but it was unlucky to assert it. Probably, he saith, some others were removed from their Sees. To which it may be enough to answer, probably not. I find not the Ecclesiastical History of those times accurately written by any. An Accurate Writer in his Sense is one who favours his own Cause, and is careful to insert a necessary Supplement of his own, where the History wants it. His admired Sanders is in this Sense accurate enough, but not so accurate, as our Author could have wished. Nor Mr. Fox to use the same diligence in numbering the change of Clergy under King Edward, as he doth that under Q. Mary. As for the Bishops which are the Clergy here meant, Fox mentions the Deprivation of all that were deprived; and it is because He had not this Author's diligence, that he named no more. Something may be conjectured from those general words of his, For the most part the Bishops were changed, and the dumb Prelate compelled to give place to others that would preach. Mr. Fox was no great Master of Style, nor rigorous in his Expressions, from which our Author would make advantage. But it is a sign his cause is desperate, when he is forced thus to build upon empty conjectures. The Deprivation of Bishops is not a matter of so little importance, that our Historians should take no notice of it; but amongst them all, We find no more Deprived, then have been mentioned. Dr. Heylin, and Dr. Burnet have been very exact in this particular, but they have not arrived to our Author's diligence and accuracy. He must therefore be content with the ejection of only 5 Bishops in King Edward●s time; which he promises us to prove not lawful, and consequently the ejected justly restored, and the introduced justly ejected in Q. Mary's time. The ejection he proves not lawful; Because 1st. Not done by Lawful Authority. 2ly. Nor for a Lawful Cause. §. 55 1st. Not done by lawful Authority: Because the Bishops being tried for Matters Ecclesiastical, their Judges were the King's Commissioners. But neither is it true (at least not proved) that they were tried for Matters Ecclesiastical; Nor is it true that the King's Commissioners (amongst whom was the Metropolitan) were not proper Judges in such Causes, as has been proved by the Animadverter; Nor can the Authority of such Commissioners, tho' unlawful, be declined by this Writer, who presently will prove the Bishops in Q. Mary's time ejected by lawful Judges, Who yet were no other, than that Queen's Commissioners. So that there is in this one Period such a complication of falsehood, as nothing can match, but what follows concerning the Causes of their Deprivation. The Causes he supposeth to be all the Articles of Popery as distinct to the Religion Reformed; Their not owning the King's Supremacy; Nonconformity to his Injunctions; Not-relinquishing the Use of former Church-Liturgies; Not conforming to the New-Service, and other Innovations. He supposes he has by this time confirmed his Authority with the Reader so far that he will credit his bare assertion without vouching any History. But it is impossible He could have falsified so grossly, had not an implicit Faith in Sanders given him over to a Spirit of delusion. Tonstal a Bur. V 2. App. p. 390. 391. was deprived for Misprision of Treason; He was a firm Friend of the Protector, and so well satisfied with the first changes which were made, that he is complained of by Gardiner (as well as Cranmer) in a Letter which he wrote to the Protector. b Ibid. Bonner and Gardiner were deprived for not Preaching up the King's Authority to be the same under Age as after; which is a point purely Secular, and relating to the Constitutions of this Government; c Bur. Hist. V 2. p. 70. Gardiner in the Sermon (for an Omission in which he was deprived) expressed himself very fully concerning the Pope's Supremacy, as justly abolished, and the Suppression of Monasteries and Chantries; approved of the King's proceed; thought Images might have been well used, but yet might be taken away; approved of Communion in both kinds, of the abolition of Masses, and new Order of Communion; asserted indeed the Corporal Presence, but that was not yet declared against. a Bur. V 2. p. 121. Bonner complied so easily with every Order of Council, that it was not easy to find any complaint against him. b Bur. V 2. App. p. 390. Heath and Day complied with all the changes that were made in the first 4 Years of this King's reign, and both preached, and wrote for them. They were deprived by Lay-Delegates in the 5th Year of King Edward, and my Author hence guesses it was for some Offence against the State. After this account I need not be solicitous to examine, Whether the Causes assigned by our Author were just Causes of deprivation or not, having proved that they were not at all the Causes. As for the Ejection of the rest of King Edward's Bishops by Q. Mary, this, he saith, will be justifiable if done. 1st. For a lawful Cause. 2ly. By a lawful Judge; which therefore he assigns. The Causes here he supposes to be all the Articles of Reformation, as distinct to Popery, viz. Marriage of Clergy; denying the Papal and asserting the Regal Supremacy; accusing the Church-Service of Idolatry, denying the corporal presence in the Eucharist, or that it was a propitiatory Sacrifice, etc. This again he asserts upon his own Authority; which had need to be great, since it contradicts all others. Of the Bishops ejected by Q. Mary, (besides c Bur. Hist. V 2. p. 247. those who made room for the re-entrance of the former Possessors, not unjustly ejected, so far as has yet appe●●●d, and therefore unjustly reintroduced) d Bur. V 2. Coll. p. 256. Four of them, Holgate, Farrars, Bird, and Bush were ejected for Marriage. e Ibid. p. 257. Three others Tailor, Hooper, and Harley were deprived by Delegates, who were empowered to declare their Sees void, as they were already void. a Bur. V 2. p. 275. Barlow was made to resign. b Bur. V 2. p. 257. Cranmer, the only remaining Bishop in the Catalogue, was esteemed Archbishop till he was degraded for Heresy; so that he indeed was deprived of his See, and of his Life together, for the Causes alleged. Now as for those, which were ejected for Marriage, it was warranted by the Law of God, the Authority of the Primitive Church, the Statutes of the Realm, and the Synodical Act of the English Clergy. Nor is it to any purpose, which our Author urges, that these Acts of the Parliament and Synod were repealed; since a repeal could only abrogate the Law for the future, not void it from the beginning; it might make that Marriage should be, not that it should have been unlawful; it might legitimate the proceed against these Bishops if they retained their Wives, not warrant the deprivation of them for what was passed. Nor is it more material which is here urged, that the Laws which legitimated such Marriage were void in their making, as being contrary to the Canons of Superior Councils, until it be proved that those Councils, which prohibited such Marriage, were our lawful Superiors, and, if so, had power to lay such a Yoke upon their Subjects. For these Councils he refers me to the Discourse of Celibacy, and for a Reply I refer him to the Answer to it. As for the next 3 Bishops Tailor, Hooper, and Harley their Judges were not to seek for a Cause, who had power to declare their Sees void, as they were already void. But let us at last suppose the Causes of their Deprivation the same as are by him alleged; as it is confessed they were the Causes, for which Cranmer was deprived, and for which He and others were burnt; Yet whether these were just Causes of Deprivation or not, doth not depend upon this Man's confident Assertion, but on the truth of the thing. It seems something arrogant thus Magisterially in one breath to condemn all those Doctrines of the Reformation, which have hitherto stood the shock against all their Arguments, and their Faggots; their Bellarmine's and their Bonners. The Reformers for some Years have been writing and dying in Justification of these Doctrines, and doth this Author at last think that the very naming of them is Evidence enough that those Bishops, who were ejected for their adherence to them, were rightfully ejected as to the Cause? But it is enough with these Men to condemn an Opinion, that it is not their own; For as for the truth of particular Doctrines, whether there be a Trinity, whether Christ and the Holy Ghost be God, or the like, these, we are told, a Guide in Controu. Preface. are things that trouble none, who hath once undergone the Mortification of dethroning his own Judgement, and hath captivated it to the Unity of the Church's Faith. But as they were regularly ejected as to the cause, so they were as to the Judge, they being not ejected, he saith, by the Queen's Commissioners, but by the delegates of the Western Patriarch. This, not to speak too bluntly, is a b Book of Educ. p. 294. Edit Ox. 1677. Gasconade with a Witness. Had not the World been presented with a Collection of Records, such an Assertion, as this, would have been more tolerable; but to tell us they were not deprived by the Queen's Commissioners, when we can have recourse to the c Bur. Vol. 2. Coll. p. 256. 257. Original Commissions, by which they were deprived, became one, who writes as if he had no reputation to lose. But the Judges were to be proved Canonical, the Delegates of the Prince had before been affirmed to be Uncanonical, and this being a knot impossible to be untied, the Knight-Errant boldly cuts it. §. 65 Having proved that these Bishops were regularly ejected as to the cause, and as to the Judge, the next Question is, whether they were regularly burnt too? As for the burning of Heretics, it is to be considered, He saith, that the Secular Laws, not Ecclesiastical appoint it, and the Secular Magistrates, not Ecclesiastical, execute it. This amounts to no more than that Kings are the Pope's Executioners; they are required to extirpate Heretics upon pain of being themselves extirpated; and if they will not be active, must be passive. It is farther observed that Protestant Princes, as well as Catholic, have thought fit to execute this Law upon Heretics. He instances in Joan of Kent, and George Paris burnt in Edward the Sixth's days. But these suffered for Impieties directly against the Creed; a B. V 2. p. 111. Joan of Kent for denying that Christ was incarnate of the Virgin Mary; b Ibid p. 112. George Paris for denying that he was God. We have King Edward's c Ibid tears recorded which he shed upon signing the warrant for Joan of Kent's execution; but I have not read of any tears shed upon that Occasion by Q. Mary. Some other Anabaptists condemned and recanting were enjoined to bear their Faggots. But d Ibid. p. 111. the Opinions of these Anabaptists would have made an Anticreed to that of the Apostles; and bearing the Faggot is ill opposed to the cruelty of that Reign, when e Cranmers case. recanting did not exempt from burning. In Henry the 8th 's time, Cromwell pronounced Sentence on Lambert to be burnt. I never read before that King Henry was a Protestant Prince. Archbishop Cranmer committed to the Counter Thomas Dob a Master of Arts, who also died in prison. The Consequence is, that Protestant Princes burn Heretics. In Q. Elizabeth's time jews and Hammond were burnt for Heretics. Hammond's Impieties against God and his Christ were such, as a Cambd. Hist. of Eliz. p. 235. Edit. Lond. 1675. Mr. Cambden will not mention, but desires they may be buried in Oblivion. Lewis was an Heretic of the same Magnitude. Hacket was executed for Heresy and Blasphemy. b Ful. Hist. Book 9 ●h. p. 205. Such blasphemies as might have been uttered by a fallen Angel. Coppin and Thocker were hanged for publishing Brown's book against the Common-prayer. But c Stow's Chron. Q. Eliz. p. 696. that book full of Sedition against the State. In King James' time Bartholomew Legate was burnt for an Heretic. But d See his Opinions. Full. l. 10. p. 62. he an Arrius Redivivus. As for the Statute of King James An. 3. Jac. 4. c. it does not punish the reconciled as Heretics, but as Traitors. The Crime there reputed Treason is withdrawing the Natural Obedience from the Prince; and none can suffer by that Act, who takes the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy. Had the Writ de Haeretico comburendo lain as quiet as this Act, We should not have reflected with so much horror on the Cruelty of the C. of Rome. This instancing in a Statute made only in terrorem, and never put in Execution (tho' the demerits of some Apostates have been sufficiently provoking) would tempt one to look back into the last Century, and review the Treasons and Rebellions which extorted the making of that Statute: but I forbear to pursue this Topick, lest too warm a zeal against the disloyalty of that party be itself interpreted dis-loyal. §. 66 Having showed us the Protestant's judgement concerning the justness of burning Heretics, he next gives us his own Sentiments. The ignorant Laity, and illiterate Clergy he in his great mercy rescues from the Faggot, and condemns only to Poverty and Prisons. This in Spain or Italy had been a great Act of grace; but He might be sure few of our Laity or Clergy could plead the benefit of it. The Fathers of the Church and Learned Sons of it are not mentioned in this Indulgence, and there seems to be no reserve for them. Indeed He had stretched his kindness too far in favour of the Haereticis credentes, and as if he repent, confesses some of them to have been extremely arrogant and ignorant. It provokes his Indignation that Mechanics should dispute with Bishops. But the advantage these Mechanics had in the cause, made amends for the imparity of the Advocates. And after all, Bonner, and the Miller were not such unequal Disputants, as He would persuade Us. They relied he saith, on the uncertainty of their own Judgement. But this Protestant certainty such, as has been proved to rise as high as the Popish Infallibility. He is not satisfied that the Relations of these disputes are penned with Integrity. Indeed the reasonings of the Roman Prelates and Doctors are such, as One would be apt to think them mis-related; but when I read our Modern Controvertists, I begin to have a great respect for their Forefathers. The next Paragraphs tell us, §. 67.68. that if the Ejection of these Bishops were lawful, than the Introduction of others will be so too, tho'. 1. Whilst they living, 2ly. Without the Metropolitan's consent. But I am so well satisfied he has not proved the lawfulness of the Ejection, that I shall not dispute with him concerning the Consequences of it. Our Author himself, who doth not use to be scrupulous, seems here unsatisfied with his own performances. For being conscious he has not proved Q. Mary's Clergy lawful, §. 69 He has another hold to which he makes his last retreat. He is willing to justify Q. Mary's re-establishment of the former Religion, even without her own Clergy, from the Authority of Superior Synods. This he knows is part of our Plea, but with this advantage on our side, that Whereas, he will have the Prince obliged to execute the Church's Canons without Inferior licence, We think him much more concerned to provide for the Execution of Christ's Laws without such consent of the Clergy. What has been said in this Chapter cannot want a Recapitulation. The ejection of Bishops in King Edward's time was to have been proved unlawful, because for an unlawful Cause, and by an unlawful Judge; the ejection of Bishops in Q. Mary's time lawful, because for a lawful Cause, and by a lawful Judge: the Judges in both cases were the same, viz. the Commissioners of each Prince; the Causes in neither are rightly assigned; and of those which are assigned, Nothing is said to prove their respective lawfulness or unlawfulness. This is the great Argument of the Chapter; to repeat all the falsehoods in it, would be to transcribe it. A Reply to his 6th Chapter. THat the former Supremacy was reassumed by Q. Elizabeth, §. 70.71. is confessed: Thus much is said in the Title of this Chapter, and no more in 3 pages of it. Some bounds of this Supremacy are owned to be assigned by Protestant Writers: §. 72 Who therefore are wronged by this Author, when they are represented as Advocates of an unlimited Supremacy. The Qualifications by us urged are taken from the Queen's Title, her Admonition, the words of the 37th Article, and the Proviso in the first Act of Q. Elizabeth. §. 73 Now as to his Rational Reply to the Title; that Head and Governor in a due sense are Synonymous, I allow; but because the Style of Head gave Offence, the changing of it into a word, which was less obnoxious to cavil, §. 74 was material. As to the Admonition, it has been observed by the a p. 40. Animadverter that no more power is there challenged to the Prince, than was due of Ancient time to the Imperial Crown of this Realm; and so much our Church-Governour, if he will be constant to his own Principles, cannot deny. As to the Clause of the 37th Article, §. 75 that, he tells us, will be subscribed by all sides; I hope therefore the Supremacy is there limited; Else the Romanists will subscribe to an unlimited power of the Prince. §. 76 As to the Proviso, that the adjudging of Heresy should be confined to the Canonical Scriptures, four first General Councils, and Assent of Convocation, and that this should be no confinement of the Supremacy, §. 77 is to me a Paradox. That the re-establishment of the Supremacy was not consented to by the Bishops, who were in the beginning of Q. Elizabeth's Reign, is true; but whether those in the former Chapter have been proved a lawful Hierarchy, must be left to the Reader. This indeed was asserted strongly; but proving is not this Author's talon. A Reply to Chapter the 7th. I Have hitherto, not without great patience, pursued this Author through all his wind, and turn, and every where discovered his constant fallacies and prevarications. Being arrived to Q. Elizabeth's Reign, in which the Reformation had its last settlements, We might justly have hoped He would have been drawing towards a Conclusion. But We have been wand'ring in a Labyrinth, and after this tedious pursuit are brought to the same point again, whence We first set out. Four long Chapters have been spent to show us what Supremacy King Hen. Ed. and Q. Eliz. assumed; and the same things are to be repeated again in above an hundred pages more, §. 78 to show how they acted according to such Supremacy. This I know is a frightful prospect to the Reader, but that He may not be dejected, I promise him to dispatch the succeeding Chapters with greater brevity, and to give them an Answer more proportionable to their weight, than their bulk. §. 79 We are told that King Henry by Virtue of his Supremacy committed the Laws Ecclesiastical to be reform by 32 Commissioners. But this was a Repetition when we met it last; it was spoke to when it first offered itself; and I should follow a bad pattern, if his Example should invite me to repeat. §. 80 By Virtue of such Supremacy he set forth certain Injunctions concerning Matters of Faith. These Injunctions were the genuine Acts of the Convocation. The setting them forth therefore was not by virtue of any such. i e. any new Supremacy. For it is confessed, that to enjoin the observance of Synodical decrees by Temporal punishments was such a Supremacy, §. 16 as the Princes of this Land, before Hen. 8th, had and exercised. These Articles set forth seem to him to have nothing in them favouring the Reformed Opinions, and to discede in nothing from the Doctrine of former Councils. Why then are they brought here as an Evidence that the Reformation was carried on by mere Civil Supremacy? But however our Author and Sanders agree in their History, they differ much in their judgement. a Sand. p. 119 Sanders styles some of these Articles Heretical, the Doctrines of Luther, and Zwinglius, and saith they are diametrically oposite to the Catholic Religion. The body of them he compares to the Alcoran, as made up of a Medley of Religions, and, after his usual manner of treating Princes, calls King Henry upon this Occasion another Mahomet. a Bur. V 1. p. 218. The Reformers at that time thought a great Step made by these Articles towards a Reformation: The Papists here were much mortified by them, and the Papal party abroad made great Use of them to show the necessity of adhering to the Pope, since King Henry, having broke off his Obedience to the Apostolic See, did not, as he had pretended, maintain the Catholic Faith entire. If therefore these Articles do in nothing discede from Popery, it is because the New Popery of this Age has disceded much from the antiquated Popery of the former. It is noted, that the King by Virtue of his Supremacy commands these Injunctions to be accepted by his Subjects, not as appearing to him the Ordinances or Definitions of the Church, but as judged by him agreeable to the Law of God. Our Author had little matter for Censure, when He urged this as an Accusation. It is imputed that he paid more deference to Christ's Law, then to the Act of a Convocation; and chose rather to resolve his and his Subjects Obedience into the Authority of God, then of Man. Thus are We taught that we must put out our Eyes, ere We can follow Our Spiritual Guide, as We ought; and in our Faith prescind from Christ's Authority, if We will approve ourselves good Catholics. For if what is enjoined by the Church seem agreeable to the Word of God, and therefore is accepted, such acceptance is accused of not being sufficiently resigning; So that no one, according to these Principles, is a true Son of the Church, but he who pays a blind Obedience to her Dictates, either without any regard to God's Laws, or in formal Opposition to them. §. 81 By Virtue of such Supremacy he published a Book entitled, A necessary Doctrine for all sorts of People. The two a Bur. V 1. p. 274. Arch-Bishops, several Bishops, and Doctors of the Church compiled this book. If the Doctrines in it were as Orthodox, as they were thought necessary, I see no harm in the Publication. Whether they were or not, concerns not us, it being not pretended that these (or the Six Articles, which are here also urged) were Acts of the Reformation. §. 82 Heresy became a thing of the Parliament's cognizance, as well as the King's; Of their cognizance, not only for the declaring and punishing, but also the adjudging of it. What the nice difference is betwixt declaring, and adjudging Heresy, I am not so subtle a Nominalist as to determine. Heresy was no farther of the Parliament's cognizance, then to declare, how it should be punished. It was, in this sense, of the Parliament's cognizance before King Henry the 8th 's time, when the Laws were made against Lollards, and after King Edward's time, when those Acts were by Q. Mary's Parliament revived. He has dwelled the longer on these Instances that We may see, when a Prince (together with his Particular Clergy, §. 83, 84.85. or rather whom out of them He shall choose) claims a power of composing Models of Christian Faith, and declaring all those his Subjects Heretics, who do not believe and obey such his Determinations; what danger, what mutability occurrs in such a Nation, as often as this Independent Head is not every way Orthodox. It concerns not us, what ill Consequences may attend the claim of such a power, until it be proved that we ascribe such an Authority of New-Modelling the Faith to our Princes. The Apostolic, Nicene, and Athanasian Creeds we receive and embrace; but I know not of any Henrician Creed incorporated into our Faith. The Romanists have a Creed Younger by some Years than King Henry; but nothing is a part of our Faith, but what sprung up with Infant-Christianity. It is therefore a wild Inference, that because we own the King to be Supreme Head of the Church, therefore We make the Christian Religion mutable. Did we make Acts of Parliament the Rule of our Faith, there would be ground for such an Objection; For then an Article of Faith might be enacted and repealed at pleasure, and He, who was Orthodox in one Session, might become an Heretic in the next. But Scripture is the Rule of our Faith, a Rule like its Author, unchangeable; the same yesterday, to day, and for ever. The Christian indeed is obnoxious to the power of the Prince, but Christianity is without the reach of his Sword. Nor has the King this influence over the external profession of Religion, as he is the Ecclesiastical Head, but as he is the Civil Supreme. God has entrusted him, as such, with the power of the Sword, with a command indeed to use it for the protection of the true Religion, but with a natural liberty still of using it for the Protection of a false. This Author, I confess, has a remedy against this, namely, some Temporal coactive power lodged in the Pope, in order to dissolve upon Occasion the coactive power of the Prince; But we do not envy him this Catholicon against Innovation. Passive Obedience is our Principle, and if this renders the legal Establishment of our Religion more obnoxious to the pleasure of the Civil Magistrate, Yet it better secures our common Christianity. Q. Marry therefore may repeal King Edward's Laws, but unless she could repeal Christ's Law too, Ridley's and Latimer's Religion will still be the same; The only difference is, that the Faith, which before they defended from the Pulpit, they now more effectually propagate at the Stake. To conclude this point; whilst Princes have the power of the Sword, and Subjects are obliged to Nonresistance, the Supreme Governor will have an influence over the outward State of Religion; and He, that complains of this, repines against the Methods of God's providence. It is no blemish therefore on the Reformed Religion (which is here dwelled upon by this Author) that it went forward or backward under King Henry, according as his different passions or Interests inclined him. Whilst Q. Ann lived it had indifferent success, saith Fox. Here then, saith our witty Observer, the Supreme Head of the Church was directed by a Woman, and managed the Affairs of Religion accordingly. Now admitting this were a truth, which had escaped him, Yet the curious Editor, I doubt not, amongst his Collections has met with a Medal representing Donna Olympia with the Pope's Mitre on her Head, and St. Peter's Keys in her Hands; and on the Reverse, the Pope with his Head dressed like a Lady, and a Spindle in his hand. Be it also true, that Cromwell, a Laic, had the total management of Ecclesiastical affairs under King Henry, Yet any one, Who is conversant in History, knows that the administration of the Popedom has been in the Hands of more obnoxious Favourites. §. 86 What is said in the next Paragraph, is not of more moment here, then when first mentioned in Paragraph the 19th. §. 87 By Virtue of such Supremacy, he took Possession of all the Monasteries and Religious Houses. Our prolix Author, who never spares his own Labour, or his Reader's Patience, has enlarged upon this point for 12 Paragraphs, and is very copious against Sacrilege. But I do not see how our Cause is concerned in this charge; Avarice and Sacrilege are as great Sins in our Homilies, as they are in the Popish Canons; and Cranmer and Ridley were as severe against robbing the Church, as this Declaimer. We are no more concerned to defend King Henry's rapines, than the Lusts, some have charged him with. Were the Suppression of Abbeys as great a crime, as it is here under false colours represented, I do not see why we are more obliged to plead in its favour, than this Writer would think himself bound, because he asserts the power of the Roman Patriarch, to justify the foul and unparallelled enormities of those, who have sat in St. Peter's chair. But were the dissolution of Monasteries represented impartially, it would be easy, were it necessary, to give it a fair appearance; and it must be at last confessed that the fault of King Henry was not so much in taking away those foundations of Superstition, as in not applying all the Revenues, as he did some (and had done more, if the Reformers had had more Influence over him) to Uses truly Religious. By Virtue of such a Supremacy he made orders and gave Dispensations in matters of Marriage, §. 99.100. of Fasts, of Holydays, of Election and Consecration of Bishops, and Challenged a power of abrogating several other Ceremonies. It ought to have been shown, that any Constitutions concerning these did ever oblige us, but such as either were made and ordained within this Realm, or such other as were induced into the Realm by sufferance, consent, and custom; for until this Proposition laid down in the Statute a 25. of Hen. 8.27. c. be disproven, the Assumption there, that the State hath power to dispense with its own Laws, will be unshaken. Ecclesiastical Canons with this Author is another expression for Papal Decrees; the Authority therefore, which supported them, being justly taken away, it is no wonder if they fell with it. Amongst the Rites, which King Henry commands to be observed, till he shall be pleased to alter them, Fox reckons paying of Tithes; Where this Annotator observes, that, Tithes are here conceived to be in the disposal of the Supreme Head of the English Church. Now whether King Henry thought Tithes to be jure divino or not, doth not concern the Reformation; But what is here said of payment of Tithes doth not prove that he thought them alienable from the Clergy; For he might by his Laws regulate the payment of them, tho' he did not think them disposable in this Author's sense. Several Statutes were made in his Reign for the better securing this Right of the Clergy; In them a 27. Hen. 8. c. 20. Tithes are said to be due to God and the Church; the detainers of them to have no regard of their b 32. Hen. 8. c. 7. duties to Almighty God; And the c Ref. Leg. Tit. de Decimis cap. 1. Reformatio legum derives the Clergy's original right to them from the Laws of Christ. §. 101 By Virtue of such Supremacy, he without any consent of the Clergy, by his Vicegerent Cromwell ordered that English Bibles should be provided and put in every Church. The translation of the Bible was petitioned by the 2 d Bur. V 1. p. 195. Houses of Convocation; and the publication of it was included in that request. This Act therefore had the consent of the Clergy, tho', had it wanted it, it would have been justifiable from the Law of God. The prohibition of the Scriptures to the Vulgar, which followed afterwards, was no Act of the Reformation, but of the Anti-reformers. It was pretended that some erroneous Opinions were propagated by a free Use of the Scripture; and therefore that Use was restrained. Now lest it be objected by Us, that the Opinions, the King called erroneous, were the Protestant doctrines discovered by the Vulgar from the New light of Scriptures, this Author bids us see the very Opinions a the Bishops collected them in Fox: unownable by any sober Christian. It is my fate to deal with One, who glory's in his Shame; and Who is seldom content to be mistaken, but he refers his Reader to the very Page, which confutes him. Fox, in the very place by him cited, has showed how unfaithful the Bishops were in that Collection; He has with great Industry compared the Bishop's Catalogue of Errors with the Books, whence they are cited, and from the Comparison has proved the Bishop's guilty of a fault (which this Author inherits from them) that they perverted the say of the Protestants otherwise then they meant, falsely belied them, or untruly mistook them, either in mangling the places, or adding to their words, as might serve for their most advantage to bring them out of credit. By Virtue of such a Supremacy these things that King did, some of them against the Canons, not of Popes, but of the Catholic Church, §. 102 and Superior Councils. The truth of this depends upon the four first parts of Church-Government: When we know what he means by Church-Catholic, what by Superior Councils, and what those Acts of the Reformation are, which are thus opposite to such Obligatory Canons (for we do not desire to justify all King Henry's proceed) it will then be seasonable to give in our Plea to this (at present) indefinite charge. That the King should derive his Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction on Cromwell a secular person, §. 103 and unlearned; concerns not Us, since the placing such Jurisdiction on a Person so unqualified is no part of the established Discipline of this Church. But that this is not a thing unparallelled, the Animadverter has given an Instance in the King of Spain's exercising by Lay-Delegates greater Authority in Spirituals, then can be pretended to have been lodged in Cromwell. If now we look back to the a Bur. Hist. Pref. preparations, which were made towards a Reformation in this King's Reign, and consider that the Papal Usurpation was by him abolished, the Rites and Constitutions, which depended merely on that Authority, fallen together with it; the Superstition of Images, Relics, and redemption of Souls out of Purgatory suppressed with the Monasteries; the extravagant Addresses to Saints reduced to a mere ora pro Nobis, and that left at Liberty to be used or omitted; the Scriptures translated, published, and made the Rule of Faith; and the power of a National Church to reform herself vindicated; We shall not be scrupulous to sdbscribe Mr. Fox's Epiphonema, which so much grieves this Author, That King Henry did by his Authority more good for the redressing and advancing Christ's Church here in England in three Years, than the Pope the great Vicar of Christ with all his Bishops and Prelates had done in the Space of three hundred Years before. A Reply to Chapter the 8th. §. 104 THis Chapter is ushered in with a reflection on the breach made by King Henry upon the Church's Doctrines; I confess myself very curious to know how a breach here is reconciled with a Non-discession from the Church's Doctrines above; §. 80 but will by no means engage this Author upon so immoderate a task as that of salving all his Contradictions; I rather choose to own it as an extraordinary piece of modesty, that he has placed the two Contradictory Propositions in different Chapters. He challenges the Duke of Northumberland to be of the Roman Church. §. 105. n. 1. We confess it, nor do we envy him such a member. His striking in for ambitious ends with the Reformers, who went upon honest princeples, casts a blot upon his memory, but no blemish on the Reformation. Whether Cromwell died a Roman Catholic, as this Author intimates, or not, the term Catholic faith used in his last Speech made doubtful. This Writer bids us compare Fox with Lord Herbert. Fox supposes him a Protestant, and in the Margin calls his Speech a Fox. p. 1190. , A true Christian profession of the Lord Cromwell at his death: Lord Herbert in his History saith no more than that b Lord Herbert. Hist. p 524. he made profession of the Catholic faith; the Index c Under the Letter C. indeed saith, he died a Roman-Catholic. Th' e d Antiq. Brit. p. 334. Author of the Antiquities gives him an High Character, and supposes him of the Reformed Religion. I do not find that Heylin or Godwin mention any thing of this. e Ful. Hist. 1. 5. p. 233. Fuller after his way descants upon it, and inclines to think him a Protestant. Dr. Burnet f Bur. V 1. p. 285. makes it appear that the term Catholic faith was then used in its true Sense, in Opposition to the Novelties of the See of Rome. He argues from his praying in English, and that to God only through Christ without those tricks, which the Roman Church use when they die, that he was none of theirs. After all, this Controversy is not perhaps worth the deciding; but this Author is over peremptory in affirming that he died a Catholic in his Sense. King Edward had but one Parliament all his days, § 105. n. 2. continued by Prorogation from Session to Session, till at last it ended in the death of the King. It betrays gross Ignorance in one, who sets up for an Historian, thus blindly to mistake in a matter so notorious. g Bur. V 2. p. 195.214. The first Parliament was dissolved. Apr. 15. 1552. and a second called the 1st. of March after. As for the complexion of King Edward's Parliament, which he has given us from Dr. Heylin, It arises to no more than that in so great a Body, All did not act upon pure principles of Conscience, but some were swayed by their Interest: An imputation, from which None can pretend to vindicate their Infallible Councils, not this Author himself. Cranmer is accused of unorthodox Opinions concerning the power of the Church. § 105. n. 3. Cranmer pretended not to be Infallible, and all that is here said, is, that he was not. He a Bur. V 1. p. 172. had some singular Opinions concerning Ecclesiastical Functions, which yet he enjoyed by himself, and never studied to make them part of the doctrine of this Church. These b Bur. V 1. inter Addenda. p. 357. afterwards he corrected, and we find him subscribing a Declaration, in which it is affirmed, that the Power of the Keys is formally distinct from that of the Sword. And lest it be thought that in this subscription he was overruled by a majority, in a c Bur. V 2. p. 71. Work, which was wholly his own without the concurrence of any other, He sets forth their Divine Institution. Posterity, saith our Commentator, might have done better to have covered this Nakedness of their forefather, then to have published it after so great Silence. A caution this of great use to the Followers of Ignatius and Francis, but till we come to draw Parallels betwixt Cranmer and our Saviour, we shall not be ashamed to own in him the frailties of a Man. §. 106 King Edward sent out Injunctions in matters of Religion. True! And these contrary to the Decrees of former Obliging Councils. Which, till the four former parts of Church-Government are published, I may safely deny. Without the consent of a Synod, the Act of which only has force in such Matters. This has been said often, but never yet attempted to be proved. §. 107 He next presents us with a summary of the King's proceed from Fox, but, according to his usual method, very much interpolated. Men of Learning were sent for from foreign Countries, saith Fox; Which argues scarcity at home of those Clergy, who would second the King's Reformation, saith the Comment. After his rate of arguing, very possibly it may; men of great Learning, say Travellers, are at this time great rarities in some Popish Countries; Yet my Logic gives me no encouragement to argue, that in those places there is a scarcity of Popish Clergy. Among those scent for, saith Fox, were Peter Martyr, Martin Bucer, and Paulus Fagius; He might have added, saith the Parathesis, Bernardus Ochinus. Had he been as much delighted in adding, as we find this Church-Governor, he no doubt would have added it. But Mr. Fox very probably had not read that Ochinus was sent for, and therefore besides other reasons made Conscience of saying it." Martyr taught at Oxford, Bucer and Fagius at Cambridge, saith Fox. Sure, saith our Author, not because the Universities were not held so Learned, but because they were not counted so Orthodox. Very sure it is, that a composition of both was required, and it is no wonder if in the very dawnings of Reformation, Persons so qualified were very rare. Fox addeth And that with no small commendation of the whole University. The Author puts in, not without opposition of many Learned Men there, and recommends to our Reading, when at leisure, the rational arguings of Mr. Glyn, Mr. Langdale, and others against the Reformers. How rational their arguings are, he, that is at leisure, may consider; but this Writer has given us such a Specimen of his own, that I doubt his Judgement will little recommend them. But, since he has imposed this task upon us, I hope, by way of return, he will be pleased to peruse the Dialogue between Custom and Verity, which immediately follows that part of Fox, which he has assigned us. As for the Oxford oppositions, Peter Martyr's relation is perhaps not the most impartial. And some may say our Church-Governor is perhaps not the most Honest. For if by this scrupulosity of Expression he would insinuate that Martyr was partial, this is a Calumny borrowed from Sanders, and replied to by his a Bur. V 2. App. p. 394. Confuter. You may find in his Opponents, Tresham, Chadsey, and Morgan, much Learning, Reverence to the Church, and zeal in their Cause. I have not the Relation by me, and therefore can pass no judgement on this Learned Triumvirate. But as for Tresham we have a Specimen in Fox b Fox. p. 1475. how great a Talon he was Master of in disputing. Being Pro-Sub-Dean of Christ-Church he called all the Students together, and recommended Popery to them upon these convincing grounds. 1st. He urged, that there were a goodly company of Copes that were appointed to Windsor, but he had found the Queen so gracious to him, that they should come to Christ-Church; Now if they, like honest men, would come to Mass, they should wear them on holidays. A second motive was, that he would get them the Lady-Bell of Bampton, and that should make the sweetest ring in all England. The third was, that as for an Holy-Water-Sprinkle, he had already the fairest within this Realm. He thought therefore no man would be so mad, as to forego these commodities. It may be needless to remark to the Gentlemen of that Foundation, that our Adversaries are still the same dangerous Orators, and therefore, if any should have irrecoverably engaged his Affections to a pretty pair of Beads, or set his heart immoderately upon the great Bell, it concerns him to have a guard upon himself. The Author having mustered up the Bishops ejected in King Edward's days, adds; Pate Bishop of Rochester, Goldwel Bishop of St. Asaph,— Bishop elect of Bangor are said to have been Banished. If the Author was Jesuit enough to say this to himself, before he wrote it, he may come off, If not, it will prove a most unconscionable Gasconade. Pate a Godw. Catal. of Bishops in Worcester. Bur. V 2. p. 324. was never Bishop of Rochester, but of Worcester; he was not Banished, but Fled; and this not in King Edward's time, but in King Henry's. So here was multum in parvo. Goldwell b Heylin's History. p. 224. was not Bishop of St. Asaph, nor any other Bishop till A. 1555. which was in Q. Mary's time, and therefore it was an unreasonable Prolepsis to make him one of the exiled Bishops in King Edward's time. Anonymus Long-stroke Bishop Elect of Bangor is one of our Author's own Creation. Some more, he saith, might be removed in like Manner; who happen not to be mentioned because deceased before the Reign of Q. Mary; as Wakeman Bishop of Gloucester, Holbeck Bishop of Lincoln, Skyp Bishop of Hereford, Rugg Bishop of Norwich. No doubt they might have been, if this Church-Governor had pleased, for never Committee-man ejected more arbitrarily, than he. But that they actually were not removed, we have these good reasons to think. The ejection of Bishops is particularly insisted on by our Historians; but these Bishops make none of the number. All these Bishops do happen to be mentioned, not as deprived, but deceased; Tho' their Deprivation had deserved mentioning, as well as their Death. c Burn. V. 2. p. 152. Heylin's Hist. p 90. Wakeman died in Dec. 1549. d Burn. V. 2. p. 203. Heylin's Hist. p. 129. Holbeck in August 1551. e Burn. V. 2. p. 218. skip in the Year 1552. Rugg died in the Year 1550, according to f Godwin's Catalogue in Norwich. Godwin; Dr. Burnet g Burn. V. 2. p. 150. calls him Reps, and saith heresigned. So that what our Author has inserted here de proprio is like to be looked upon as one continued Forgery. The next two Paragraphs have more truth in them, §. 108.109. being transcribed from Fox, But the Proclamation inhibiting the whole Clergy to preach, cited from Fuller, is questioned by a Burn. V. 2. p. 81. Burnet, who met with no footsteps of it neither in Records, nor Letters, nor in any Book written at that time. The succeeding Paragraphs of this Chapter pretend to give Us the defence made by the Protestant Divines concerning King Edward's proceed, § 110. to § 136 together with our Author's Rational Replies. But besides, that from the fair dealing of this Author already detected, we have no reason to expect him ingenuous in representing the Arguments of our Divines with their just weight; it may be farther offered by way of Precaution, that those excellent Divines, which he refers to, wanted one advantage, which we of this Age have from a more complete and Authentic History of the Reformation, and, among other things, not knowing of the b Bur. Hist. V 1. Pref. rasure of Records made in Q. Mary's Reign, pleaded to those Negative Arguments which we have good reason to reject. This premised, I proceed to consider with all possible brevity his Alphabet of Arguments. α Urges that these Injunctions were not set forth but by the advice and consent of the Metropolitan; and β of other Bishops. § 111, 112, The substance of his Reply to α and β is, that these Injunctions had not the Authority of the Metropolitan, as such, i. e. as acting with the major part of the Synod. Now α β may easily rejoin that where the matter of the Injunctions is lawful, much more where it is necessary, as being commanded in Scripture, there the coactive Authority of the Prince is sufficiently Obligatory; and that since the Office of Pastors (whether in or out of Synod) is directive, these Injunctions proceeding from the direction of both the Metropolitans (for a Bur. V 2. p. 25. Holgate also Arch Bishop of York was a Reformer) and b Ibid. other Learned Bishops, were not destitute of Ecclesiastical Authority. γ Saith these Injunctions were not set forth as a body of Doctrine (which was the Act of the Synod in the 5th. of King Edward) but were provisional only for the public exercise of Religion and Worship; and Gamma is in the right of it, for any thing his Replyer faith to the contrary, who doth not pretend that they were. A new Objection indeed is started, and pretended instances given that King Edward claimed a power for rectifying the Doctrines of his Clergy. §. 113 But not to trouble the Reader with examining the Instances, we say that such a power might have been justly exercised, and that a Prince, requiring his Clergy to receive and teach such Doctrines, as were taught by our Saviour, usurps no Authority not invested in him. δ Saith, The public Exercise of Religion was necessary to be provided for at present. §. 114 It is answered, that the Judgement of a National Synod was necessary for such Provision. For the proof of that, we are referred to c Ch. Gou. Part. 4th. a Book, which no Bookseller has yet had the courage to undertake; and therefore for a Reply, I remit him to the Answer to it; which he will find at any Shop, where Church-Government Part the 4th is to be sold. ζ Saith, The Injunctions extend only to some evident points, the abolishing of Image Worship, the restoring of the Liturgy in a known tongue, and Communion in both kinds, and the abolishing of Romish Masses, and that in the three former the King restored only, what was established in the Ancient Church. §. 118 It is replied that nothing is said in ξ of taking away the Mass; But if the Reader be pleased to consult ζ he will be satisfied of our Author's modesty. If ζ did not charge the Mass with Novelty, it was because the Respondent had the management of the Opposition. As for the other three points, §. 117 he confesses that the Reformation in them restored the practice of the Primitive Church, and so kind he is, that he could have pardoned us this, had we not proceeded to pronounce the contrary Doctrines unlawful. A very heinous aggravation this, when he himself confesses, that Errors in practice do always presuppose Errors in Doctrine. § 1 From which Zeta doth humbly subsume, that those Church Governors who would have been facile to licence a change of their practice, ought not to have been difficile in allowing us a decession from their Doctrine. §. 115 The Controversy betwixt out Author and ε is so trifling that it is not worth troubling the Reader with it. For this reason perhaps it was, that Zeta took Epsilon's place. η Urges that these Injunctions were generally received, and put in practice by the Bishops; and θ much-what the same, that they were consented to by the major part of Bishops. The Answer to this consists of some Pages; but what is material in it will lie in a less room. It is urged that some were averse to the Reformation, that the Compliers were guilty of dissimulation, of an outward compliance whilst contrarily affected, that they remained of the old Religion in their heart, wore vizours, took up a disguise, and were swayed by the fear of a new Law-giving Civil power. To this η and θ will not be so rude as to rejoin, that it may perhaps be this Editor's personal Interest to prove that these Bishops complied against their Consciences, and that Hypocrisy was the general principle of that party; but that it is little for the honour of the Communion, which he would seem to be of, to urge, that the whole body of its Pastors were guilty of the highest prevarication possible with God and Man. But this doth doth not at all affect our Divines, who only urge that those Bishops conformed, and might in charity have hoped that they did it Honestly, but are not concerned, that this Compliance was from base and ungenerous Motives. What is said here of the Liturgy shall be considered in λ, where it ought to have been said. I cannot dwell upon the History of these Paragraphs; but there are in it some bold strokes worthy of our Author. He blushes not to cite Parson's Conversions, §. 121 a book made up of lying and Treason, and which might have made the Mastery in Assurance betwixt its Author and Sanders disputable, had not Posterity seen a third Person, who may seem to have put an end to the quarrel. In a citation from Fuller, §. 124 tho' he refers us to the very Page, he puts upon us four Popish Bishops more than Fuller reckons; Aldrich Bishop of Carlisle, Goodrig Bishop of Ely, Chambers Bishop of Peterborough, and King Bishop of Oxford. Now, tho' by the absolute Authority of a Church-Governor he might have imposed these four Bishops on us, Yet it seems very hard that Fuller should be commanded to satisfy us of this point, who not only mentions not such Bishops, but in his Marginal notes tell's us, that he thinks Oxford and Ely were at that time void. We are told that Cranmer in the beginning of King Edward's days called a Synod, §. 127 wherein he endeavoured to have effected a Reformation, but could not; for which we are bid to see Antiq. Britann. p. 339. But he, who would see any such thing there, must borrow our Author's Spectacles. χ Urges, that it makes no real difference whether a Reformation begin from a Vote of Bishops in Synod, and so proceeding to the Prince be by him established, or take beginning from the Piety of the Prince moved by advice of faithful Bishops, and, so proceeding to the whole Body of the Clergy, be by them generally received, and put in practice according to the command of Sovereign Authority. The Answer is, §. 130 that the King did not propose a Reformation to the Clergy by them to be consulted of, and upon their Assent or denial to be established or laid aside, which would have been lawful; but by them to be obeyed, as imposed by the King, which He thinks unwarrantable. But to this it may be replied, from what has before been urged, that the matter of the Command being lawful (not to say necessary) the Authority of the Prince is Obligatory, and that the conformity of the Bishops is an Evidence that the matter was by them judged lawful. In λ it is urged that the first Form of Common-prayer, and Administration of Sacraments in the 2d. Year and 2d. Parliament of King Edward's reign had the approbation and consent of the whole body of the Clergy in Convocation. To this it is offered by way of Answer, That no other Act of Reformation before the 5th of King Edward had the consent of Convocation. §. 126 But neither is this true, nor doth it prove that therefore this Liturgy had not. That it was confirmed by Act of Parliament before it had this consent. But, granting this, had it therefore not the consent of Convocation? But, how doth he prove that the Act of Parliament preceded the Decree of the Synod? Because the Act of Parliament doth not mention the consent of Convocation. Negative Arguments he knows do not conclude, and it is positively said in the a For. p. 1303. Letter of the Council to Bishop Bonner that this Liturgy (not only had the Assent) but was set forth with the Assent of the Clergy in Convocation. Our Author himself, when he has forgot the debate here, §. 146 will tell us, that the Liturgy was at the same time authorised by Act of Parliament, and consented to by Convocation. But it is said, the Second Liturgy was sent to the Clergy, autoritate Regis & Parliamenti. Ergo, the first Liturgy had not the consent of Convocation. But, a motive to this consent might be fear of punishment. Yet the a Bur. V 2. p. 101. Convocation, which gave this consent, acknowledged to King Edward the quietness they enjoyed under him, having no let nor impediment in the Service of God. But the withdrawing of a few Clergy, especially if prime leaders, and introducing new Votes of a contrary persuasion into their rooms (suppose taking away six old Bishops, and putting in six new ones) may render that, which before was a major part, now a lesser, and consequently the Act of this major part invalid. This putting of cases is very impertinent here, for when the consent of Convocation was given to the Liturgy, not one old Bishop was deprived. For the Letter to Bonner before mentioned, which mentions this Assent of Convocation to the Liturgy, is directed to him then Bishop of London, who yet was the first of the Bishops deprived. This Liturgy, he saith, rather omitted, then gainsaid the former Church-tenents and practice. This is urged by way of Apology for the Convocation's consenting; but whether the Liturgy omitted or gainsaid the Church-practise, it was one main branch of the Reformation, and it is not denied that it had the Vote of a Synod. The errors reformed were such as corrupted, either the Worship or Doctrine; that the Reformation of Worship had the Authority of a Synod, is after much shuffling granted; Whether the Articles, which were the Reformation of Doctrine, were not confirmed by the same Authority is to be examined? §. 134 This μ with good reason affirms; the Replier defers the dispute, Whether the Articles were the Act of the Synod? and upon Supposition that they were, Answers that the Clergy were now much changed, many old Bishops displaced, new ones introduced; many absented from Synod, others dissembled. All this is said upon our Author's bare credit, which by this time may not be altogether unexceptionable. Only five Bishops have been proved to be ejected; two of these, Heath and Day, in the same Year wherein these Articles were passed; and their Deprivation placed in History after the passing of the Articles; the Bishopric of Durham was not yet dissolved; only two New Voters therefore (Ridley and Poinet) introduced by the Ejection of the old (Bonner and Gardiner) and those old, not proved to have been unlawfully ejected. §. 135 What is said in ν is not denied in the Answet to ν, but something said which must wait for a Reply, till Church-Government Part the 4th has overtook the 5th. A Reply to Chapters the 9th. and 10th. §. 136 OUr Author having described the general way of King Edward's Reformation proceeds to particulars: His description of the general has proved very Poetical; the particulars are most of them served up the second time, and very little altered in the dressing. §. 136 By Virtue of such Supremacy he sent Articles to the Bishop of Winchester to subscribe. But these Articles were sent once before in the 45th Paragraph, and needed not have been sent again here, since the Bishop a Fox. p. 1350.1357. subscribed all (but that which contained an acknowledgement of his fault) at the first sending. §. 137 By Virtue of such Supremacy the six Articles were repealed without a Synod. The repealing of an Act of Parliament is not, I suppose the business of the Convocation. King Henry's Parliament had affixed severe Penalties on the Violators of the Six Articles; these King Edward's Parliament took off. Nothing therefore was repealed by the Civil power, but it's own Act. But neither is it true that none of these Articles were revoked by Synod. For the b Bur. V 2. p. 50. Convocation, that sat with this Parliament, declared for Communion in both kinds, and Marriage of Priests, contrary to two of those Articles. Had not the Registers of this and other Synods been c Ibid. lost, I doubt not but we could have proved most Acts of the Reformation Synodical. §. 138 By Virtue of such Supremacy he justified the power used by his Father over the possessions of Monasteries and Religious Houses. That is, He did not throw up his right to them. This power was justified by Gardiner, and Bonner, and others, whom our Author must own for Catholics. This Power was justified by Q. Mary's Parliaments, who would not part with their Lands, as they did with their Heresy. This power is still justifiable by the Romanists, or else a late d Nath. Johnson. Author deceius Us, who has invited us to his House to a Volume of satisfactions, that the Alienation of Church-Lands consists with the principles of that Church. But 'tis said, King Edward went farther, and declared Monastic Vows to be unlawful, superstitious, and unobliging. The Reformers have always declared the same, and must continue to do so, till some reasons are brought to convince Us of the falsehood of such a Declaration. Those, which are offered in the Discourse of Caelibacy, are not demonstrative. King Edward seized upon Chauntries, Free-Chappels etc. his pretence being the Unlawfulness of offering the sacrifice of the Eucharist, or giving alms for the defunct. The unlawfulness of these is not pretended by the Reformation, but proved; The Chauntries were dissolved, that the provisions for them might be converted to more pious Uses; this was the design of the Act of Parliament (for which only We can be thought obliged to answer) how ever it might be defeated: For the statute expressly provides that they be converted to good and Godly Uses, as in erecting Grammar-Schools for the Education of Youth in Virtue and Godliness, the farther augmenting of the Universities, and better provision for the poor and needy. §. 139 In this he went beyond his Father, that He began the taking of Bishop's Lands also. This must be reckoned an Act of the Reformation, tho' he knows it is as pathetically lamented by our Writers, as by his own. He citys the complaints of three Protestant Bishops (Cranmer, Ridley, and Godwin) and a Protestant Dr. (Heylin) to prove this charge, and yet at the same time has the boldness to charge it on the Reformed. Sure, saith he, foul things were done in this kind, because I find even King Edward's favourite Bishops highly to dislike them. If Cranmer, and Ridley, and other King Edward's favourite-Bishops disliked the spoil of the church-good, why is the Odium of this cast upon the Reformers? Or why must very foul things be done, before these declare their dislike, when it will be found upon History that Cranmer and Ridley were more inveterate Enemies to robbing of the Church, than Gardiner, and Bonner? He shuts up this Paragraph with a remark, that Laymenders of Religion, ordinarily terminate in these two things, the advancing of their carnal Liberty and temporal Estates. Sure this Author thinks that We know nothing beyond the Alps; that we never heard of the rich Nephews of Popes, which are flagrant evidences that Carnality and Avarice are not only Lay-vices. But perhaps he may object, that Popes are no menders of Religion. § 140 By Virtue of such Supremacy he removed Images out of Churches, and this when the Second Nicene Council had recommended the Use of them. This Second Nicene Council is often appealed to by this Writer; there is a Second Divine Commandment, (or at least there once was such a Commandment) which will deserve his Consideration. What Reverence we pay to this Council, he may have learned from a late a Reply to the 2 Disc. Oxon. Reply, where the Reader will find a just Character of this celebrated Assembly. §. 141 By Virtue of such Supremacy, he imposed a Book of Homilies. i e. He took care that the people should be instructed in things concerning their Salvation, who before had been kept in ignorance. §. 142 He laid a command upon the Clergy to administer the Communion in both kinds to the people. Which Command had been laid upon them by our Saviour. Contrary to the Injunction of the Council of Constance. Which Injunction was made with a nonobstante to the Institution of Christ. Without any preceding consultation of a National Synod. But b Bur. V 2. p. 50. others tell us it was agreed to by the Convocation, which sat with that Parliament, and particularly that in the lower House it did not meet with a Contradictory Vote. §. 143 The succeeding Paragraphs to the 164th treat at large of the Suppression of the former Church-Liturgies, Ordinals, and other Rituals; the setting up of New Forms of Celebrating the Communion, Ordination, and Common-prayer; the alterations of King Edward's first Common-Prayer-Book in his Second, and the reduction of some things, in the Scotch Liturgy, to the first Form of King Edward, and the complaints concerning this in Laudensium Autocatacrisis; But the Reader will excuse me, if I think a defence of our Liturgy at this time of day needless; the unlawfulness of the Mass, and Invocation of Saints, and the nonnecessity of Sacerdotal Confession have been defended in Volumes; besides that this, which is here said, is only a Second Edition of the two Discourses concerning the Adoration etc. Where this change of the Services is animadverted on. So that this has been already considered, and any farther Reply is superseded by the two Learned Answers from London and Oxford to those Discourses. §. 146 By Virtue of such Supremacy the King conceived he had a power to alter and reform the Ecclesiastical Laws. This is the 4th time that this Reformation of the Laws has been insisted on; it is here confessed, that this Rerformation of them was never ratified by King, Parliament, or Convocation, i. e. that it was no Act of the Reformation; Nothing is urged against it but that these Laws were established by former Superior Councils, and the Reader, ere he can be satisfied of that, must be at the charge of four more Volumes of Church-Government. By such Supremacy he abrogated all former Church-Laws concerning days of fasting or abstinence, and appointed those, he thought fit, by his own and the Parliament's Authority. The Canon-Laws, which he calls the Church-Laws for fasting, were full of mockery and superstition; Religion was placed in those Observances, and yet Sensuality was consistent with them; It was adviseable therefore to take off those Laws, and yet to keep up such as might make Fasting and Abstinence agreeable to their true End; Which is to be a means to Virtue, and to subdue men's Bodies to their Soul and Spirit, the End expressly provided for in the Statute. There is no Obligation, he saith, for the Observation of either Fasting or Abstinence by any express Canon of this Church Reform, but only by Act of Parliament. The days of Fasting are prescribed in the Liturgy, which has the Authority of Convocation; Fasting is enjoined in the Homilies, which have the same Authority; It is there recommended from precepts of Scripture, from the Example of Christ, and from the Constitutions of the Primitive Councils; It is defined to be a withholding from all meat and drink, and all manner of Natural food, in contradiction to this Author, who saith, that not Fasting is enjoined us, but only Abstinence from Flesh; He might with as good reason have urged, that Praying to God, and believing in Christ are not enjoined by the Church, as that Fasting is not; For if by Canons he means those, which are properly so called, neither is there any Canon, that I know of, which enjoins such Prayer, or such Belief. §. 165 By Virtue of such Supremacy the King and Parliament ordained that such Laws which prohibited Marriage to any Spiritual Persons, who by God's Law might Marry, should be of none effect. The Convocation had declared the Marriage of Priests lawful by the Law of God; the State found the Prohibition tended to the detriment of the Republic, and therefore (had they had no other reason) might according to our Author's own principles take it off. §. 166 By Virtue of such Supremacy the King published 42 Articles of Religion, said to be agreed on in a Synod of the Clergy held at London. If these Articles were the legitimate Act of the Synod, than they were not the effects of mere Regal Supremacy; and that they were so, will, I doubt not, appear, notwithstanding all his cavils. If any one should question whether the Iliads and Aeneids were the genuine works of Homer, and Virgil, the Title they carry, and the Universal Tradition, which assigns them to these Authors, would be thought a sufficient Vindication of them. This Author builds part of his Faith on the second Nicene Council, and opposes its Decree, in favour of Image-Worship, to the second Commandment forbidding it. If I should ask him how he knew such a Decree to be genuine, he would not, I believe, produce the Records, but think it a good Reply, that it is found amongst those Acts which bear the Name of that Council, and which the Church has always accepted as such. These Articles are published with the Title of the Synod; this publication was Anno 1553, the next Year to that, in which we say they were passed in Convocation; the Church for the first 5 years of Queen Elizabeth retained these Articles as her Doctrine; the Convocation in that Queen's time reestablished them with very little Alteration; they have been appealed to, ever since, by our Writers as the Acts of that Synod; they have been owned by our Adversaries as such; and if so general a Tradition of a thing so notorious, and so lately done, may not be admitted, the Church of Rome is built upon a weak Foundation. But all this notwithstanding, this Author thinks he has good Reason to deny that these Articles were established by that Synod. First, he transcribes what Mr. Fuller saith of this Convocation, which I shall not hear copy, because the Author has here (once for all) dealt ingenuously. Mr. Fuller saith the Records of this Convocation, are but one degree above blanks; and to the same purpose Dr. Heylin. But neither of these Historians had seen Q Mary's Commission for razing the Records; else they could have given us an account, why these Registers are so bare. Dr. Heylin a Heylin's History. p. 121. found left upon Record in that Convocation a Memorandum concerning the Dissolution of the Bishopric of Westminster; and it is not improbable that these Articles were expunged by some Persons, who yet were willing that the Dissolution of a Bishopric, which they thought might cast an odium upon the Reformation, might remain upon Record. As for Fuller's Assertion, that the Convocation had no Commission from the King to meddle with Church-business, it is only a conjecture which he makes from the silence of the Records. Fuller's Discourse of the Catechism doth not at all affect the Articles, unless it be proved, that by Catechism must be understood Articles, which our Author endeavours to persuade his unwary Reader. For this purpose, he next presents us with a Relation from Fox, concerning the questioning of a Catechism in the 1st Synod of Q. Mary; but here he is himself again, as will appear to the Reader, if he compares this Relation with Fox's. He concludes this Story with this Epiphonema. This concerning the questioning of the Catechism and Articles; whereas in the Relation nothing is said of the Articles, but the Catechism only. To clear this point a little farther, He finds in Fox Archbishop Cranmer charged amongst other things, with being Author of the Catechism and Articles, and with compelling men against their wills to subscribe them. Here again he shuffles; Archbishop Cranmer is not there charged for compelling Men to subscribe the Catechism, but the Articles; as appears from Fox's relation, as it is transcribed even by himself; but he makes the Catechism subscribed, that it may look like a Synonymous term to Articles. Archbishop Cranmer answered to that charge, that he exhorted such as were willing to subscribe, but compelled none against their wills; Now, where this Exhortation, and Subscription was, unless in Synod, will not easily be answered. Having given us these three relations, he next proceeds to make reflections on them. First he excepts against the words in the Title of the Articles, de quibus inter Episcopos & alios eruditos Viros, etc. that they seem not the ordinary expression of a Synodal Act, which runs more generally; as thus [de quibus convenit inter Archiepiscopos, Episcopos, & Clerum universum] or the like. This, which he calls an ordinary expression, will scarce be found in the Title of any Synodal Act before Q. Elizabeth. These Articles are by him confessed to have been subscribed by part of the Synod; Cranmer who drew up the Articles, and procured Subscriptions to them must himself be a Subscriber; probably also Holgate Archbishop of York, who was a Reformer; Archiepiscopal Authority therefore might have been mentioned, had they been the Act of only a part of the Synod, and therefore that it is not explicitly mentioned (for it is implied in the Episcopal) can be no argument, that they were the Act of a part only. But the other words in the Title, ad tollendam opinionum dissensionem & consensum verae Religionis firmandum show they must have been the Act of the whole Synod, since the Opinion of a part could not be effectual to such an End. Next he observes, that tho' the Prolocutor in the Synod 10 Mariae questions, and Philpot answers concerning the Catechism, yet they speak not of the Catechism, but only of the Articles, which were first printed at the end of the Catechism, and bound up with it, which the Prolocutor therefore calls the Articles of the Catechism, and proposeth the matter of the 28th of these Articles for disputation; and so also calls them the Catechism, because the first Title of this Book is Catechismus brevis, etc. In this Period we have as much crude unconcocted reasoning, as would have furnished an ordinary Writer for some Pages. Weston ill deserved the Office of Prolocutor, if speaking of a Catechism he meant not that, but the Articles, which are two as distinct things as can well be imagined. The Articles a They are so bound up together in the public Library. were indeed bound up with the Catechism; but have a new Title-page, and are as distinct from it as the Discourse of Caelibacy is from the Considerations on the Spirit of Martin Luther. Now had the Answerer to the Considerations on Martin Luther entitled his Book, an Answer to the Discourse of Caelebacy, or should the Replyer to the Discourse of Caelibacy call his Book a Reply to the Considerations on the Spirit of Martin Luther, they would not take it ill to be laughed at; and yet this is our Author's way of arguing. But the Prolocutor speaks of the Articles of the Catechism, and therefore must mean the Articles at the end of the Catechism. Now this is only a quibbling upon Mr. Fox's way of expression, who by the Articles of the Catechism means no more than the matter of the Catechism, as is evident both from the Context, and from Fox's b Decretis simul rebus de quibus acturi essent, nempe de Catechismi libro, deque iis quae ad Sacramenti altaris praesentiam, & transubstantiationem attinebant, postquam de his ita rebus atque id genus prolegomenis primo die transactum est, secundo deinde die Prolocutor in Synodum ingressus duas secum Schedas affert, quarum unâ Christi naturalis in Sacramento praesentia affirmabatur, alterâ vero Catechismum neque Synodi autoritate editum, neque eidem etiamnum adhuc Synodum assentiri— Job Filpottus; Videmini Vos omnes turpissime falli quod vos ita oftendat Catechismi inscriptio Rerum in Eccl. guessed. Comm. à Joh. Fox. p. 215. Edit Basil. Latin History, where the Conference is related in such words, as, being void of all Ambiguity, leave no room for Sophistry. Fox saith, Philpot stood up and spoke first concerning the Article of the Catechism, that He thought they were deceived in the Title of the Catechism. Where I hope our Author will not understand by the singular Article the 42 Articles. And it is observable that what Fox in English calls in one place the Articles of the Catechism, and the Article of the Catechism in an other, that the Latin Fox calls Catechismi liber in one place, and Catechismus in the other. So that it is evident our Author here only sports himself with a poor clinch upon the English word Article. But it is said, that the Prolocutor proposed the matter of the 28th of these Articles for disputation. I am apt to lose my patience, when I find one cavilling at this rate, who seems not so much as to have seen King Edward's Articles. The matter proposed for disputation was the Natural presence of Christ in the Sacrament; but the 28th of King Edward's a See them in Sparrow's Collections, or Bur. V. 2. Coll. Articles concerns Baptism. In the 39 Articles as they now stand, the 28th concerns the Doctrine of the Lord's Supper; and therefore he unthinkingly judged it must have been the same in King Edward's 42 Articles. But how doth it follow that because the Natural Presence is spoke of in the Articles, therefore when another question was proposed," whether the Catechism was agreed to by the former Synod" by Catechism there must be meant the Articles? This is such a Consequence as ill becomes a Disciple of Occam. What if the same matter be also proposed in the Catechism? Then I hope proposing this for disputation is no Argument, that by the Catechism is meant the Articles. I desire therefore the Reader to consult the b Ind non efficitur ut nobis sit corpore praesens, cum alia divinitatis ejus sit ratio, humanitatis alia; Haec est creata, alia increata; haec in aliquo coeli loco, illa autem sic ubique est, ut coelum & terram impleat, Quod ad corpoream Christi hic in terris praesentiam attinet (si magna parvis componere licet) sic Christi corpus praesens est nostrae fidei, ut Sol, cum cernatur, praesens est oculo, cujus corpus tametsi corporaliter oculum non contingat, atque hic in terris praesens praesenti adsit, tamen corpus Solis praesens est visui, etiam reluctante intervalli distantia; Sic corpus Christi quod in gloriosa ejus Ascensione nobis sublatum est, quodque reliquit mundum, & ad Patrem abiit, ore nostro abest, etiam cum sacrosanctum corporis & sanguinis ejus Sacramentum ore nostro excipimus; fides autem nostra versatur in coelis, ac intuetur Solem justitiae, ac praesens praesenti in coelis haud aliter illi adest, ac visus adest corpori solis in coelis, aut Sol in terris visui, etc. M. Video, mi fili, te neutiquam ignorare quomodo dicatur Christus corpore absens, & Spiritu praesens.— Quemadmodum pane & vino vita nostra naturalis sustinetur ac nutritur, sic corpore. i e. carne & sanguine Christi anima per fidem nutritur ac vegetatur.— Ista fiunt occulta quadam energia Spiritûs, quando credimus Christum corpus & sanguinem suum pro nobis tradidisse, etc. See much more to the same purpose in the Catechism. Margin, and he will be satisfied, that the Corporal Presence is there denied, and that the Prolocutor had greater reason to call this Book Heretical, than our Author has to affirm, without any regard to truth, that it doth not State, scarce touch any Controversy. But still, it is plain they must speak of the Articles, because the Catechism, as taken by itself, is not at all entitled to the Synod, but only the Articles at the end thereof. The Catechism, which we now find bound up with the Articles, is not, I confess, entitled to the Synod; but that either this, or some other Catechism, of which the dispute here is raised, was so entitled, is put out of all doubt by a passage we meet with elsewhere in a p. 1440. Fox, where Weston thus charges Cranmer, You have set forth a Catechism in the Name of the Synod of London, and yet there be 50, which witnessing that they were of the Number of the Convocation, never heard one word of that Catechism. Cran. I was ignorant of the setting too of that Title, and as soon as I had knowledge thereof I did not like it. Here the Discourse proceeds altogether upon a Catechism; and there is no subterfuge for a pretence that Catechism; is another word for Articles. Philpot's words are not applicable to the Catechism, but to the Articles only. Philpot pleads that the Catechism might be entitled to the Synod, because the House had committed their Synodal Authority to certain Persons, to be appointed by the King, to make such Ecclesiastical Laws as they thought convenient. Now I see no reason why a Catechism doth not as properly come under the Denomination of Laws Ecclesiastical, as Articles; or how the Catechism's being drawn up by Cranmer, can be a reason that it could not be meant, but the Articles; when the Articles also were drawn up by Cranmer, as our Author himself proves from Fox. But, if the 42 Articles were framed by the Synod, the Prolocutor had no reason to get hands to the Catechism, as falsely ascribed to that Synod, when what was more opposite to what he accounted the Orthodox Religion, namely the Articles, was known to be passed by them. It was not the Doctrine of the Catechism, or Articles, which was here questioned, but the false ascription of the Catechism to the Synod; Now the Articles being undeniably genuine, they content themselves only to condemn the Doctrine of them; but the Catechism being supposed illegitimate, they subscribe both against its Doctrine, and Authority: Nor could Philpot have pleaded, as our Author would have had him, that the Synod's composing the Articles justified the Act of the Delegates composing the Catechism; since this might indeed warrant the Doctrine of the Catechism, but not the entitling it to the Synod. He saith, all the Historians that he hath seen are silent concerning these Articles. In this dispute concerning the Articles Dr. Heylin is twice mentioned, and two several Books of his referred to in those very pages where he mentions these Articles. In his a Heylin's Hist. p. 121. History He thinks them debated and concluded on by a Grand Committee, on whom the Convocation had devolved their power, and esteems it not improbable that these Articles being debated and agreed upon by the said Committee, might also pass the Vote of the whole Convocation; though we find nothing to that purpose in the Acts thereof, which either have been lost, or never were registered. [I add, or being once Registered were expunged.] In his Reformation justified, a Ref Justif. § 4. He positively affirms that the Clergy in Synod 1552. did compose and agree upon a book of Articles. Neither therefore is Dr. Heylin silent herein, nor is he one of the Historians, which this Author never saw. Dr. Burnet is another Historian, whom either this Editor had seen, or ought not to have published this Relation, till he had first consulted him. He peremptorily affirms, b Bur. V 2. p. 195. that in the Year 1552. the Convocation agreed to the Articles of Religion, that were prepared the year before. But our Author has still another Objection in reserve, that the Archbishop Cranmer, to whom it would have been an excellent Defence to have showed these Articles to have been subscribed by a full Synod, yet pleaded no such thing. That Reverend Martyr pleaded that the Opinions, which he maintained, were the Doctrines of the Scripture, and Primitive Church; that the rejection of the Pope's Supremacy (the fundamental Heresy, of which he was accused) was the Unanimous Act of the whole English Clergy and Nation, and, which his very Judges had solemnly sworn to. Now if this Plea could avail nothing in his Defence, it must have been a weak Plea to have insisted on Articles passed in a Synod called by himself, and over which he, by reason of his Archiepiscopal Authority, had great Influence. This dispute is concluded with a shrewd Remark, which our Author raises from a passage of Dr. Heylin. The Dr. observes that this Book of Articles was not confirmed by any Act of Parliament; whence he concludes, that the Reformed Religion cannot be called a Parliament Religion; Hence this Author gathers that, neither was it a Synodal Religion, because we see the Parliaments in King Edward's time corroborating the Synods in all other transactions of the Reformation. Now tho' there is ground for the Drs. observation, because there is never an Act, which formally gives Sanction to these Articles, yet there is in one of those very Acts (cited from the Doctor in this Pamphlet) that, which quite overthrows our Author's Conclusion. For in the Act for Legitimating Marriages of Priests, it is said that, the untrue Slanderous report of Holy Matrimony did redound to the High dishonour of the Learned Clergy of this Realm, who have determined the same to be most Lawful by the Law of God in their Convocation, as well by common Assent, as by the Subscription of their Hands. Which words plainly refer to the 31st of these Articles, and are an Authoritative Testimony, that they are the genuine Act of the Synod; and had, I doubt not, been expunged, had the Commission of rasure extended to the Statute-Book. I have insisted the longer on this particular, because it is a matter of some moment, and because the Author has here used more than ordinary Artifice; I have not had the benefit of any Registers, or Manuscripts, nor am I skilled in these niceties of History: What has been said, sufficiently overthrows all his Cavils; but the Curious and the Learned are able to give a more Authentic and Solid account of this matter. A Reply to Chapter the 11th. THat the Reformation was restored by Q. Elizabeth, after the extirpation of it by Q. Mary, might have been said in fewer lines than this Author is pleased to use Paragraphs. That some things were at first reduced without Synodal Authority, I confess; and that the Reformation had its last settlement by a Synod, he cannot deny. The Act of the first Popish Convocation I esteem illegal, because the Q. had sent and required them under the pain of a Praemunire not to make Canons. The Canonicalness of Q. Mary's Clergy, here acting, depends upon his former Proofs, which were not altogether Demonstrative. But let their Authority be supposed just, yet these Constitutions were repealed by a later Synod, whose Authority must be conceded equal; and therefore their Act, as being the last, Autoritative. The stress therefore of the Controversy lies in this, whether Q. Elizabeth's new Bishops were lawfully introduced; and this depends upon the legality of the ejection of the Old. The Cause of their ejection is confessed to be their denial of the Oath of Supremacy, and is just, or unjust, according as that Oath was lawful, or unlawful. Our Author therefore sets himself to examine that Oath; where he first puts his own Exposition upon it, and then attacqs it, as so expounded. Neither Q. Elizabeth's explication of her own Sense, nor the Church's Exposition in her Articles favour his Construction. Those, who take this Oath, are not persuaded that they abjure the Authority of a General Council, or the Jurisdiction of their own National Clergy. But if we accept it in that Sense, which he is pleased to impose upon it, Yet still the Strength of his Arguments depends on such Assertions, as are to be supported by his four first part of Church-Government. We must therefore wait the Edition of those, before We can be satisfied of the Strength of these. But if we may make an estimate of future performances from past, there is no reason to expect any thing formidable from that Quarter. For the only business of our Modern Controvertists is to rally up those scattered forces, which have long since quitted the field to our Forefathers. This Oath of Supremacy has exercised the Pens of the greatest Champions of both Churches; and there is not a shadow of an Argument here brought against it, but what has been baffled, when managed with better skill, and more Learning, than this Author is Master of. The Regal Supremacy in Opposition to the Papal has been asserted by our Kings, (James the first, and Charles the first in their Writings) Prelates, (Bishop Andrews, Bilson, Carlton, Morton, Bramhal, etc.) and Doctors, (Hammond, Barrow, &c,) who have exhausted this Subject, and made it impossible, as to oppose it, so to add any thing farther in Defence of it. I shall choose therefore rather to refer the Reader to these great Men for the lawfulness of this Oath, then to imitate this Author in transcribing. § 187 Having attacked this Oath in Opposition to repeated Acts of Parliament, which guard it against such attempts with the severest Penalties, he may more securely fall upon Dr. Fern, who pleads, that had none of these Bishops been removed by Q. Elizabeth, Yet the 6 Bishops remaining of King Edward's being restored, and the vacant Bishoprics supplied, the Popish Bishops would have been outvoted. To prevent this Inference, our Author tells us. 1st. That King Edward's Bishops being justly ejected by Q. Mary could not now lawfully act. That their ejection was just, he supposes, we were convinced above; The Reader therefore, according to the Degrees of Conviction, which he found there, is to pass his judgement here. 2dly. That Q. Elizabeth could not justly supply the vacant Bishoprics with any Persons, but such as the Major part of her present Bishops did first approve of. But this, if it prove any thing, proves too much; For if want of the approbation of a major part of Bishops, makes the Election and Consecration of a Bishop void, than neither was Q. Mary's Hierarchy lawful, nor the Acts of her Synods valid: if none can be a true Bishop, who has not the approbation of a major part of the Bishops of the Province, no true Bishop has sat in St. Peter's chair for some Centuries. If this rule be admitted, it will cut of the Episcopal power of the Bishops of Amasia, and Adramyttium. A Reply to Chapter the 12th. THis Chapter concerns our Ordinations, in which I miss the story of the Nagshead; a Fable hist out of the world with so much scorn, as 'tis well and wisely omitted even by this Author. But to make some amends for this Omission, what is here offered is picked up from the Confutations of our Writers. There is not an Objection, which has not been replied to by Mr. Mason, Archbishop Bramhal, and, more lately, by Dr. Burnet. As will more clearly appear, if I leave this dispute to be managed betwixt the Pamphlet, and them. Pamphlet. The new Ordination grew so far suspected, as deficient, to Q. Marry, that in her Articles sent to the Bishops this is one. That touching such Persons at were heretofore promoted to any Orders, considering they were not ordered in very deed, the Bishop of the Diocese finding otherwise sufficiency and ability in those men, may supply that thing which wanted in them before, and then according to his discretion admit them to minister. A. Bp. Bramhal. To this Objection, that the Form of ordaining in King Edward's days was declared invalid in Q. Mary's days, I answer, that we have no reason to regard their Judgement. They, who made no scruple to take away their lives, would make no scruple to take away their Holy Orders. I answer also (and this Answer alone is sufficient to determine this Controversy) that King Edward's Form of Ordination was judged valid in Q. Mary's days by all Catholics, and particularly, by Cardinal Pool then Apostolical Legate in England, and by the then Pope Paul the 4th, and by all the Clergy, and Parliament of England. This appears clearly from the words of the Cardinal's Dispensation, wherein he confirms all Persons which had been Ordained, or beneficed in the time of King Henry or Edward, in their respective Orders, and Benefices. From which I argue, that if King Edward's Clergy wanted some essential part of their respective Ordinations, which was required by the Institution of Christ, than it was not in the power of all the Popes and Legates, that ever were in the world, to confirm their respective Orders, or dispense with them to execute their Functions in the Church a Consecr. of Protest. Bps. Vindicated c. 4. p. 445. A. Bp. Br. W. T. 1. Edit Dub. 1676. . Pamphl. But if you look narrowly into the words of the Instrument, you may observe, that the Cardinal very cautiously here saith not dispensamus, or recipimus, in the present, as he doth in every one of his other dispensings, but dispensabimus in the future. A. Bp. Br. It may perhaps be objected that the Dispensative word is recipiemus, we will receive, not we do receive. I answer, the case is all one; If it were unlawful to receive them in the present, it was as unlawful to receive them in the future a Ibid. . Pamphl. He saith not recipiemus simply, but with a prout multae personae receptae fuerunt, referring to the manner of reception, which had been used formerly in Q. Mary's days, which we find set down in the Queen's 13th Article. viz. That such new Ordained repairing to the Bishop, and he finding them otherwise sufficient should supply that, which was wanting to them in respect of their Orders, as they being before not ordered in very deed. A. Bp. Br. All that was done after, was to take a particular Absolution, or Confirmation from the Pope or his Legate, which many of the principal Clergy did, but not all. No not all the Bishops, not the Bishop of Landaf, as Sanders witnesseth; yet he enjoyed his Bishopric; so did all the rest of the Clergy, who never had any particular confirmation. It is not material at all, whether they were confirmed by a general, or by a special dispensation, so they were confirmed or dispensed with at all, to hold all their Benefices, and to exercise their respective Functions in the Church, which no man can deny b Ibid. . Pamphl. That the Roman Bishops held not the orders received by the new Form sufficiently valid, is clear from the Bishop of Gloucester his degrading Ridley only from his Presbytership, not his Episcopacy; for saith he, We do not acknowledge You for a Bishop. Mr. Mason. Ridley was consecrated by the old form, and therefore this Objection is impertinent c Mas. Vindic. Eccl. Angl. l 2. c. 15. §. 10. p 209. Edit. Lond. 1625. . Pamp. The same You may see in Fox concerning Hooper made Priest by the old form, Bishop by the new, and therefore degraded in Q. Mary's days only as a Priest. Dr. Burnet. They went upon this Maxim, that Orders given in Schism were not valid; so they did not esteem Ridley nor Hooper Bishops, and therefore only degraded them from Priesthood; tho' they had been ordained by their own forms, saving only the Oath of Obedience to the Pope a Burn. Hist. V 2 p. 290. . Pamph. Again, Mr. Bradford made Priest by the new form, and therefore in his condemnation not degraded at all, but treated as a mere Laic. A. Bp. Br. Popish Bishops are no competent witnesses to give evidence concerning the Orders of Protestants. If one of us should urge a Determination in either of our Universities against them in a point of Controversy, agitated between us, for an authentic proof, how would He make himself merry with Us? Yet we might do the one, as well as he doth the other b Protest. Ordin. def. against S.N. Tom. 4. Disc. 7. p. 1006. . Pamphl. Bishop Bonner wrote a book, wherein he contended that the new devised Ordination of Ministers was insufficient and void, because no Authority at all was given them to offer in the Mass, the body and blood of our Saviour Christ; but both the Ordainer, and Ordained despised and impugned, not only the Oblation or Sacrifice of the Mass, but also the Real Presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Sacrament of the Altar. A. Bp. Br. He saith, We are not ordered to offer true Substantial Sacrifice. Not expressly indeed. No more were they themselves for 800 Years after Christ, and God knows, how much longer. No more are the Greek Church, or any other Christian Church, except the Roman, at this day. Yet they acknowledge them to be rightly Ordained, and admit them to exercise all the Offices of Priestly Function in Rome itself. We acknowledge an Eucharistical Sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving; a Commemorative Sacrifice, or a memorial of the Sacrifice of the Cross; a Representative Sacrifice, or a representation of the Passion of Christ before the Eyes of his Heavenly Father; an Imperative Sacrifice, or an impetration of the fruit and benefit of his Passion by way of Real prayer; and lastly, an Applicative Sacrifice, or an application of his merits unto our Souls. Let him that dare, go one step farther than We do; and say, that it is a Suppletory Sacrifice, to supply the defects of the Sacrifice of the Cross. Or else, let them hold their peace, and speak no more against us in this point of Sacrifice for ever a Bp. Bramhal's Works. Tom. 1. Disc. 3. c. 9 p. 255. . Pamp. Those, who are truly ordained, yet, if in an Heretical or Schismatical Church, their true Orders as to the Exercise of them are unlawful; and so, unless a Church be first cleared from Heresy and Schism, these Orders are not rightly employed in it. A. Bp. Br. First I deny that the Protestant Bishops did revolt from the Catholic Church; Nay they are more Catholic than the Roman-Catholics themselves. Secondly, I deny that the Protestant Bishops are Heretics. Thirdly, I deny that they are guilty of Schism. Fourthly, I deny that the Authority of our Protestant Bishops was ever restrained by the Catholic Church. Fifthly, No sentence whatsoever, of whomsoever, or of what crime soever can obliterate the Episcopal Character, which is indelible, nor disable a Bishop from Ordaining, so far as to make the Act invalid b Ibid. Disc. 7. p. 990. . Pam. Tho' I do not here state the Question, Whether they had such due Ordination and Ordainers as to be truly and essentially Bishops, yet their Ordination, and Introduction, if valid, seems several ways uncanonical and unlawful. A. Bp. Br. For the Canons, we maintain that our form of Episcopal Ordination hath the same Essentials with the Roman, but in other things of inferior allay it differeth from it. The Papal Canons were never admitted for binding Laws in England, farther than they were received by ourselves, and incorporated into our Laws; but our Ordination is conformable to the Canons of the Catholic Church. And for our Statutes, the Parliament hath answered that Objection sufficiently, showing clearly that the Ordination of our first Protestant Bishops was legal; and for the validity of it, we crave no man's favour a Ibid. Tom. 1. Disc. 5. cap. 8. p. 471. . Pamph. They came many of them into the places of others unjustly expelled. A. Bp. Br." This is saying, but we expect proving b Ibid. . Pamph. Neither the major part nor any, save one, of the former incumbent Bishops consented to their Election or Ordination. Dr. Bur. If Ordinations or Consecrations upon the King's Mandate be invalid, which the Paper drives at, than all the Ordinations of the Christian-Church are also annulled, since for many Ages they were all made upon the Mandates of Emperors and Kings. By which You may see the great weakness of this Argument c Dr. Burnet's Vindic. of our Ordinations p. 09. . Pamph. No Metropolitan can be made without the consent of the Patriarch, but Archbishop Parker was ordained without and against the consent of the Patriarch. A. Bp. Br. The British Islands neither were, nor aught to be subject to the Jurisdiction of the Roman Patriarch, as I have sufficiently demonstrated a Bramhal's Works. Tom. 1. Disc. 2. cap. 9 p. 128. . Pamph. Neither did be receive any Spiritual Jurisdiction at all from any Ecclesiastical Superior, but merely that, which the Queen (a Lay-Person) by her Delegates in this Employment did undertake to confer upon him. Dr. Bur. All Consecrations in this land are made by Bishops, by the power that is inherent in them; only the King gives orders for the Execution of that their power. Therefore all, that the Queen did in the case of Matthew Parker, and the Kings do since, was to command so many Bishops to exercise a power they had from Christ in such or such Instances b Vindic. of Ord. p. 89. . Pamph. Which Delegates of hers were none of them at that time possessed of any Diocese, Barlow and Scory being then only Bishops Elect of Chichester, and Hereford; and Coverdale, never after admitted or elected to any; and Hoskins a Suffragan. A. Bp. Br. The Office and Benefice of a Bishop are two distinct things; Ordination is an act of the Key of Order, and a Bishop uninthroned may ordain, as well as a Bishop enthroned. The Ordination of Suffragan Bishops, who had no peculiar Bishoprics, was always reputed as good in the Catholic Church (if the Suffragan had Episcopal Ordination) as the Ordination of the greatest Bishops in the world c Bramhal's Works. Tom. 1. Disc. 5. c. 5. p. 452. . Pamph. Nor had they had Dioceses, could have had any larger Jurisdiction save within these; at least, being single Bishops, could have no Metropolitical Jurisdiction, which yet they conferred on Parker, not on their own sure, but on the Queen's Score. Dr. Bur. Does he believe himself, who says that none can Install a Bishop in a Jurisdiction above himself? Pray then, who invests the Popes with their Jurisdiction? Do not the Cardinals do it, and are not they as much the Pope's Suffragans, as Hodgskins was canterbury's? so that if inferiors cannot invest one in a Superior Jurisdiction, than the Popes can have none legally, since they have theirs from the Cardinals, that are inferior in Jurisdiction. There are two things to be considered in the Consecration of a Primate, the one is giving him the Order of a Bishop, the other is inverting him with the Jurisdiction of a Metropolitan. For the former all Bishop are equal in Order; none has more or less than another; so that the Consecrators of Matthew Parker being Bishops by their Order, they had sufficient Authority to Consecrate him. As for the Jurisdiction of Metropolitans, Primates, and Patriarches, it has no Divine Institution; it risen upon the division of Provinces, and the Kings of Western Churches did first give those Preeminences to some Towns and Sees a Vindic. of Ord. p. 77. etc. . Pamph. But than might not She at pleasure take away, and strip Parker again of all that Jurisdiction, which he held only on her gift? A. Bp. Br. We hold our Benefices by humane right, our Offices of Priests and Bishops both by divine right, and humane right. But put the case we did hold our Bishoprics only by humane right, is it one of Your Cases of Conscience, that a Sovereign Prince may justly take away from his Subjects any thing, which they hold by humane right? If one Man take from another that, which he holds justly by the Law of Man, he is a thief and a robber by the Law of God a Bramhal's Works. Tom. 1. Disc. 5. c. 11. p. 489. . Pamph. But the Authority of these Ordainers standing good, one or two Bishops is not a competent Number for Ordination. A. Bp. Br. The Commission for their Consecration limited the Consecrators to four, when the Canons of the Catholic Church require but three. Three had been enough to make a valid Ordination, yea, to make a Canonical Ordination b Ibid. Tom. 1. Disc. 5. c 5. p. 451. . Pamph. The Form of the Ordination of these new Bishops, as it was made in Edward the 6th 's time, so it was revoked by Synod in Queen Mary's days, and by no Synod afterwards restored before their Ordination. Dr. Burn. It is a common place, and has been handled by many Writers, how far the Civil Magistrate may make Laws, and give commands about Sacred things. The Prelates and the Divines by the Authority, they had from Christ, and the warrant they had from Scripture, and the Primitive Church made the Alterations and Changes in the Ordinal; and the King and Parliament who are vested with the Supreme Legislative power added their Authority to them to make them Obligatory on the Subject. Let these Men declare upon their Consciences, if there be any thing they desire more earnestly, than such an Act for Authorising their own Forms; and would they make any Scruple to accept of it, if they might have it a Bur. Vindic. of Ordin. p. 51. etc. ? Pamph. But this Form was revoked also by an Act of Parliament in Queen Mary's days, and not by any Act restored till long after the Ordination of Queen Elizabeth's first Bishops. viz, in 8. Eliz. 1. upon Bonner's urging hereupon, that the Queen's were no Legal Bishops. Pamphlet, itself in the next Page. The new Ordinal (when Archbishop Parker was to be Consecrated by it) did not want sufficient Lay-license, having the Queen's, nor had the Parliament been defective in re-licensing it, for which see Bishop Bramhal. Pamph. For such Considerations as these it seems it was, that the Queen in her Mandate for the Ordination of her new Archbishop Parker, was glad out of her Spiritual Supremacy and Universal Jurisdiction, of which Jurisdiction one Act is that of Ordaining to dispense, and give them leave to dispense, to themselves, with all former Church-Laws, which should be transgressed in the electing, and consecrating, and investing of this Bishop. A. Bp. Br. There is a double power Ecclesiastical, of Order, and of Jurisdiction. Which two are so different the one from the other, as themselves both teach and practise, that there may be true Orders without Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction, and an actual Jurisdiction without Holy Orders. He leaves the Orders in the plain field, to busy himself about the power of Jurisdiction, which is nothing to the Question. That which the Statute calls the Authority of Jurisdiction, is the coercive and compulsory power of summoning the King's Subjects by Processes, which is indeed from the Crown. The Kings of England neither have any power of the Keys, nor can derive them to others; He need not fear our deriving our Orders from them a Tom. 4. Disc. 7. p. 1000 . As for the Dispensative clause, it doth not extend at all to the Institution of Christ, or any Essential of Ordination, nor to the Canons of the Universal Church, but only to the Statutes, and Ecclesiastical Laws of England. The Commissioners authorised by these Letters Patent to Confirm and Consecrate Archbishop Parker, did make use of the Supplentes or Dispensative power, in the Confirmation of the Election, which is a Political Act (as appears by the words of the Confirmation) but not in the Consecration, which is a purely Spiritual Act, and belongeth merely to the Key of Order b Tom. 1. Disc. 5. c. 5. p. 453. . Pamph. Notwithstanding this Regal Dispensation a Statute was afterwards made [8. Eliz. 1. c.] too take away all Scruple, Ambiguity, or doubt concerning these Consecrations. A. Bp. Br. It was only a Declaration of the Parliament, that all the Objections, which these Men made against our Ordinations were slanders and calumnies; and that all the Bishops which had been ordained in the Queen's time had been rightly ordained according to the Form prescribed by the Church of England, and the Laws of the Land. These Men want no confidence, who are not ashamed to cite this Statute in this case c Ibid. p. 439. . I have transcribed the very words of the Authors, to show the importunity of these Men, who are not ashamed to transcribe not only the matter, but the very form of those Arguments, which have been so often confuted. But there is, I confess, one thing new in this Chapter, which seems as if reserved for this Writer. He would prove that the Queen's dispensation relates not to her own Laws, but to the Laws of the Catholic Church. The words in the Commission are Supplentes etc. Siquid desit, aut deerit eorum quae per Statuta hujus regni aut per leges Ecclesiasticas requiruntur. So that the Clause extends only to the Statutes and Ecclesiastical Laws of this Kingdom; as the Learned a A. Bp. Br. W. T. 1. Disc. 5. c. 5. p. 453. Primate understands it. But this Author with his wont ingenuity omits the words, per Statuta hujus Regni, and then construes the Leges Ecclesiasticas, to be the Laws not of the English, but the Universal Church. A Reply to Chapter the 13th. A Reply to his former Chapters has made any Consideration of this needless. He supposes he has proved that the Reformation was not effected by the major part of the Clergy; and I may be allowed to suppose that he has not proved it. He has indeed affirmed that it had not Synodical Authority under King Edward, and Queen Elizabeth; and he had not ventured much farther, had he affirmed, that there never were such Princes. In this Chapter he has found Six Protestant Divines who are of Opinion, that Princes may in cases extraordinary Lawfully Reform without or against a major part of their Clergy. He is very large in proving, that they have delivered this Doctrine, but very sparing, when He comes to confute it. We think it sufficiently justified from the single Instance of the good Kings of Judah; This is copiously, he saith, spoken unto in the Succession of the Clergy, and so that Instance is confuted. This reference to his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a new way of arguing, but perhaps not altogether irrational, since his Arguments are as likely to operate with Us whilst confined to his Desk, as if they were urged from the Press. As long as the Sacred History of Hezechiah's and Josiah's Reformation shall be preserved, this Prerogative of Godly Princes will need no other defence. The particulars of the Parallel have been so exactly drawn in a a Dr. Steward's Sermon Preached at Paris. Reprinted Lond. 1687. Discourse lately reprinted, that any farther attempt would be a Presumption. It may be enough to say that He who denies that the major part of the Guides of the Jewish Church erred, must also deny Christ, since by such Church-Autority he was rejected. He, who will determine the Prince to judge always with the majority of Church-Guides, obliges him in Elijah's time to establish Baalism; and at other time's Calve-Worship. He who can excuse the Kings of Judah for not consulting with those Priests, who were guilty of Idolatry, because they were extra Ecclesiam, and he had nothing to do with them, puts a new Plea into the mouth of the Reformers. The latter part of the CONCLUSION has been particularly spoke to by the Animadverter; the former part depends altogether on the unpublished Tracts of Church-Government. He takes his farewell of the Reformed Religion with this Observation, §. 220 That, tho' at the first (perhaps out of novelty) it made a wonderful progress and growth, yet of late it hath rather lost ground, and is grown decrepit and much abated of its former bulk and Stature. I leave the Author to consider, Whether this Argument be not borrowed from the Jew. It is a surprising instance, how intent our Adversaries are upon the Interest of a Faction, when they urge such Objections against the Reformation, as equally affect our common Christianity. The Close. THIS Church-Governor has now been examined throughout: Of the strength of his Arguments, and the Authority of his History, the Reader has by this time determined. Great things were discoursed of this piece, whilst it threatened us from the Press; but it has seen the world, and our Church is not yet overturned. It is to be hoped that those well-meaning Gentlemen, who hence expected such an increase of their Numbers, do not owe to this their own Conversion. I cannot tell with what degree of Esteem others may entertain this Relation; I who have read it through (a piece of diligence which few can boast of) must confess to have discovered nothing so eminent in the Writer, as an undaunted Courage, and presence of Mind. For there is not the least distrust signified, where the Fictions are most bold and open; the grossest falsehoods being delivered with all the security and confidence of Truth. Indeed the main Artifice of these forgeries consists in the extravagant boldness of them; for it is not easy for an unexperienced Reader to think so foul practices consistent with so much unconcernedness; and nothing but a Conversation with some Authors could excuse such a Suspicion from being uncharitable. One, who finds Autorities vouched for that, of which they prove the direct contrary; passages distinctly cited, which never were extant; matters of fact barely denied, which all History assures Us of; is rather apt to mistrust his own Understanding, then to pass so severe a Judgement, as such deal deserve; But how incredible soever these practices appear in the Theory, yet the Reader may, if he please, satisfy himself that they are not wrongfully charged: Nor indeed would I hope that He should believe them from me, without consulting my Authority. I was myself willing at first to think Him little conversant in our Ecclesiastical Historians; but a narrower perusal informed me, that his peculiar excellence lay in an intimate acquaintance with those Writers. He seems to have studied them on purpose to prepare matter of cavil, and to have examined every passage with the prejudices of an Adversary, and the insidious diligence of a Spy. I would slill persuade myself, that these Papers are of so Ancient a date, that the Composer never had Opportunity to consult the latest Account of our Reformation. The exactness of that History would have obliged him to a stricter care in his Relation; that large Collection of Authentic Records would have required from him a better proof of his Assertions; and the Appendix must have satisfied him of the Character of that infamous Writer, on whose Authority he so much depends. The possibility of his not having seen these would incline me to a more favourable Opinion of some particulars: but I consider that the more one is willing to Apologise for the Author, the less he is able to excuse the Publisher. FINIS.